All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
April 12, 2024 - The Charlie Kirk Show
33:32
Joe Biden's GOTV Machine: Funded by YOU
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Fourth Amendment Abused 00:09:36
Hey, everybody.
More fi's updates with Congressman Warren Davidson and the machine that Democrats have on the ground.
It is formidable.
They are outspending us 100 to 1 on the infrastructure necessary in the key battleground states.
And you got to check it out.
It's pretty remarkable what they're doing.
And Ben Whitegarten walks us through it.
Become a member today to support this program.
If this program has impacted your life in any way and you enjoy how hard we work and you want to support us and get behind us, go to members.charlikirk.com.
That is members.charlikirk.com.
There, you can listen to all of our episodes advertiser-free.
And you can check out everything that we are fighting for, including exclusive op-eds that we publish on there.
And you can ask me questions every Friday, members.charlikirk.com.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.
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.
Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals.
Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com.
That is noblegoldinvestments.com.
It's where I buy all of my gold.
Go to noblegoldinvestments.com.
I just want to say this: Speaker Johnson was the tie-breaking vote to basically say that the founding fathers were wrong.
I hate to be that cruel, but that's just the way it is.
It was the tie-breaking vote to say that we're in a new era.
The Fourth Amendment shall not apply.
Donald Trump was supposed to do some press conference with Speaker Johnson today.
He should cancel on that.
He should say, I'm not getting near you.
Not after this.
That's my strong advice.
Okay, joining us now is Congressman Warren Davidson, who's on the subcommittee of weaponization of the federal government.
Congressman, I'm told you're fired up.
I'm certainly fired up here.
I'm trying to stay.
I'm not calm.
I'm trying to stay, let's say, centered because I don't want to allow my emotions to get ahead of me.
But there are three words out there that our audience is demanding, and it's motion to vacate.
I don't want to get there immediately.
But Congressman Davidson, what happened today?
Look, freedom surrendered is rarely reclaimed.
We had a chance today to claw back the right to privacies as it's been infringed.
The Fourth Amendment's supposed to guard that.
You know, there is a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and there's a reason there's not a domestic surveillance act.
It's the Fourth Amendment.
You're supposed to have to get a warrant or a subpoena if you want to go after an American's private data.
And unfortunately, that's being abridged.
And today, we had a chance in the House to vote to require a warrant.
And unfortunately, 86 Republicans and 84 Democrats voted, frankly, to ignore the Constitution and say, no, no, we know better than the Founding Fathers.
We know better than Benjamin Franklin.
We're going to take the other side of Franklin's deal and we're going to take security and give up liberty.
And, you know, what a sad day for our country.
So help me understand this.
Why is the Speaker of the House parachuting in when it's a tie vote to basically say that the founding fathers were wrong, that James Madison and John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is invalid?
The Fourth Amendment, quote, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue.
But upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing this place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Congressman, I mean, why does the Speaker and House leadership, including Elise Stefanik and Steve Scalise and the people that are supposed to lead our conference, why are they so adamant to make sure the FBI has huge powers and they don't believe in the Fourth Amendment?
I'm not tracking with their belief.
Well, you know, Charlie, it wasn't discovered until COVID that the Constitution has an asterisk by it.
And when you find the encrypted asterisk, it says does not apply if you're scared.
Basically, that's it.
They were scared and they were scared by the intelligence committee that this is all going to be your fault.
We know they're abusing the civil liberties of American citizens.
We know they're trampling on your rights as citizens of this great country.
So that's not really your fault.
So if you can make a little bit of a difference, then okay, you can go back and be the hero and say you tried to fix something.
But if there is a terrorist attack and you change anything that's fundamental, it's all going to be your fault, Speaker.
And that's how they scared Mike Johnson.
Okay, is it time to vacate the chair?
Well, we'll see what happens.
You know, next week, I think we're going pretty benign.
We're going to defend the freedom to own the right kinds of appliances.
But we are also going to have an effort to stop a really bad abuse that's kind of across the board, not just with FISA.
The government is buying data that would otherwise require a warrant or a subpoena.
So instead of even getting a search warrant, in lots of cases where they're required to get a search warrant, not even including FISA, they're just going to data brokers and buying up data.
And if they find voids in that data, they're paying third parties to begin collecting the data that they want to fill in the voids.
And they're doing that in really sweeping ways in some cases or in very targeted ways in other cases.
And the Fourth Amendment's Not for Sale is a bill that passed the House Judiciary Committee last summer, 36 to 1.
Mike Johnson voted for it when he was a member of the committee.
But unfortunately, it had been stripped from the FISA plan.
So both getting a warrant and not bypassing it with the data broker loophole were part of the base text of the judiciary bill.
They were both stripped out.
They were both supposed to be offered as an amendment.
And unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment's Not for Sale was stripped out.
And I think that's because they believed that it will pass when given a vote.
So we'll see next week whether we can at least stop that abuse of the Fourth Amendment.
So Congressman, first of all, thank you for your leadership on this.
I'm incensed right now and infuriated.
So the audience is just saying, you know, if there's ever a time to vacate the chair, it's over the Constitution.
I'm not, I need to center myself before I come to such conclusions of this.
So I see it both ways.
But I'm certainly very upset.
So let me just say, Speaker Johnson said rather pompously yesterday, members should go down to the SCIF and see for themselves.
Have you been down to the SCIF?
What is he talking about here?
He basically made it sound like if you knew what I knew, there's no way you could possibly get in the way of the FBI needing a warrant and we should just hand this over.
What is your response to that?
Yeah, so I didn't go to the SCIF this week.
I've been to the SCIF for years now.
So I've been in Congress since 2016.
I came in after Speaker Boehner resigned and took office that summer.
I've been working to, frankly, claw back the abuse of the Patriot Act.
You know, post 9-11, they voted to enact the Patriot Act, which really expanded FISA pretty badly and then layered in all these expiration dates so that the whole thing doesn't ever expire.
It's just little sections so you can get at it one section at a time.
And so I've looked at it in depth over the years.
And I can tell you, Christopher Wray has explained how querying is not searching.
And this is really basic.
So they say, oh, we've already lawfully collected this data under a search for the foreigners.
So then it's fine if we search it for Americans because it's not really a search.
It's a query.
And when you go to that query bar, if you type in the name of an American citizen, you're supposed to have to get a warrant.
And that's the real distinction.
If you want to search for, you know, Muhammad, whomever from Mazari-Sharif, Afghanistan, known terrorist, and you happen to notice an American, I mean, that's kind of like plain view doctrine.
But if you go to the database and you're not searching for Mohamed, whomever from Mazari-Sharif, you're searching for Mohammed Jones from Westchester, Ohio, then you should have to get a warrant.
And yes, terrorists are bad people and there could be some domestic ones, but so are pedophiles.
And so when you're going after somebody and it's an emergency situation, the warrant doesn't apply.
There's a waiver for that.
So every scenario that they throw up is always this hypothetical emergency, exigent circumstance.
But that's exempted with the warrant requirement, just like it is for pure domestic, you know, law enforcement, hot pursuit kinds of cases.
The Fourth Amendment does have an exception for exigent circumstances.
What is the time horizon now that FISA has is going to pass the House, essentially?
What kind of powers are we giving the FBI?
Is it two or five years?
I've heard conflicting reports.
FISA Powers Extended 00:02:08
Well, it was a two-year reauthorization.
So the people that took down the rule earlier this week, frankly, trying to get this two-year horizon, trying to get the Fourth Amendment's not for sale included as an amendment, we didn't get that.
They did at least get it down to two years.
So hopefully when President Trump is in office again, we don't have to wait two years, but they can't go past that two years.
At that two-year mark, then there'll be another deadline.
That seems to be what motivates Congress.
And we'll hopefully reclaim the freedom that's been surrendered today.
And boy, we lost a lot of ground.
Some of these Intel amendments that passed make FISA far worse than it was before this debate today.
I want to zero in on something you said, which is how the Intel agencies operate.
They operate like a mob, like the mafia.
It's very opaque.
It's hard to get clear answers.
And they violate the law and they violate protocol 278,000 times, 278,000 times.
And we just hand them on a silver ply.
They're like, yeah, please spy me harder.
Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here.
As you know, Mike Lindell has a passion to help you get the best sleep of your life after he invented the world's best pillow.
He created the famous Giza Dream Sheets.
They are the best sheets you'll ever sleep on.
The best night's sleep just got even better.
For a limited time, you'll get a queen size set of $59.98, king size for just $69.98, the lowest prices in history.
Mike and the MyPillow employees continue to be canceled by big box stores and attacked by the media.
They appreciate all of your great support during these times.
Want to thank you by giving you the best specials on all their MyPillow products.
To get the best specials ever, go to mypillow.com or call 800-875-0425.
Use promo code Kirk.
You get the famous Giza Dream Sheets, Queen Size for just $59.98 and King Size for just $69.98.
You also get 60% off the original MySlippers.
So call 800-875-0425 or go to mypillow.com, promo code Kirk.
That is mypillow.com promo code Kirk.
Drug War Exemptions 00:05:49
So Congressman, help me understand.
You said that the Intel agencies got to Speaker Johnson.
What do you mean by that exactly?
What was their potential threats, intimidation?
I mean, just help me understand, because it certainly can't be on the merits of the case.
The FBI lies to us.
They spy on us.
They hate our value system.
What do you mean by how they got to Speaker Johnson?
Well, look, obviously, the speaker gets extra information more than, frankly, even anyone in the Intel committee in theory.
But you see, the Intel agencies, they will hold some information.
They've held some information so classified that they refused. to share it even with the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Speaker McCarthy at the time, or Senate leader Chuck Schumer.
Now, that's not what our Constitution says.
We have a separation of powers, not like these unelected bureaucrats who've risen through the ranks, some of whom great Americans want to love our country and keep it safe.
It doesn't say you can trust them, but you can't trust the elected leadership of the country.
And I get that, okay, maybe by the time you get to George Santos and Ilan Omar to pick on two people, Santos, I guess, isn't here anymore.
You say, all right, maybe we shouldn't share everything.
So regular members don't get all of the same information that the intelligence committee members get.
And so they share certain extra things.
And so they have these briefings and they try to say, see, because reasons, it's really important.
But what they don't share is actually a case that would have actually not been able to be stopped if they had to get a warrant or because it was an emergency that there would have been an exception to the warrant.
So the warrant requirement was here.
Chairman Jordan and Ranking Member Nadler, who virtually never agree, Jerry Nadler and Jim Jordan agree, you should have to get a warrant.
They sent to the intelligence community and say, could you give us a single example where you stopped something bad that you would not have been able to stop with our warrant requirement?
They don't have an example.
So I just want to repeat that.
So when you challenge the Intel agencies, because they actually, of course, they lie.
They said in an op-ed that all these instances of kidnappings and foreign interventions, they wouldn't have been possible if we had to go get a warrant.
But when you actually ask them with precision as a lawmaker, they can't give you an example.
Yeah, that's right.
So Chairman Jordan, the chairman of judiciary and Jerry Nadler, the ranking member, sent an inquiry into the intelligence community saying, please give us an example that would not have been able to be stopped if you had to get a warrant.
And the specific version that we're saying that has an exemption in case of an emergency.
If there's something time sensitive and urgent, you can waive the warrant requirement.
Show us an example where you wouldn't have been able to stop this horrible act under the warrant requirement that we're proposing.
And they had no example to present to them.
And yet we have the speaker that goes and votes against amendments.
So let me just understand at a fundamental level deeper here.
What amendments have, was there any alterations, any changes to FISA that were meaningful?
Or is it basically just a blanket renewal with window dressing?
Oh, no, there were changes and they were all bad.
So Mike Turner led an amendment that expands surveillance to all Wi-Fi hotspots.
So all your wireless Wi-Fi hotspot communications will be now swept up.
And, you know, good.
I hope they catch some bad guys with that.
But the problem is you're collecting a lot of American citizens' data.
And, you know, the check on that is if you want to, again, you want to search for the American citizen, then if you get a warrant, then there's at least some limitation on what you can do with that American data.
There's not a minimization effort here.
There's actually a maximization effort underway, and that was Turner's.
The other one that's huge is Dan Crenshaw had an amendment that says anything involving the war on drugs, essentially, you can sweep up that communication too.
And, you know, it's basically like a war on drugs exemption to the Fourth Amendment.
And look, pedophiles are bad too.
Why wouldn't we waive the Fourth Amendment to go after pedophiles?
You know, so we've had a horrible fitino crisis.
It is killing Americans, and we should stop the cartels.
I have a bill called the Stop the Cartels Act that would escalate collection on the cartels to the same way we targeted ISIS or Al-Qaeda as enemies of our country.
But you don't sweep up American citizens' data in that.
And then the last one that was a big expansion was Mike Waltz had an amendment that is intended, I think, to go only after people coming into the country illegally.
That's already permissible.
So you could say it really doesn't expand anything, but there is some concern that the language is so expansive that literally everyone coming into the country, including U.S. citizens returning home, could be vulnerable to swept up communication.
So that's the concern about the Waltz amendment.
But if it's as benign as he claims it is, then it really didn't change anything.
So instead of fixing it, House Republicans made it worse.
Warren Davidson, thank you so much.
For years, I've talked about our nation's public schools have been captured by progressive ideologues, especially true if you're a Christian family.
For those of you worried about the best educational path for your kids and grandkids, I want to tell you about how Turning Point Academy is working with the Herzog Foundation, how you at home can also benefit from it.
They have an online publication called The Lion, and also making the leap, the Herzog Foundation offers a wide range of advice and information for Christian parents to make the best education decisions for your kids.
Go to Herzogfoundation.com.
That is Herzogfoundation.com.
So check it out right now, HerzogFoundation.com.
Portions of the Charlie Kirk Show are brought to you in part by the Stanley M. Herzog Foundation.
That is Herzogfoundation.com.
Subsidizing Democrat Ground Ops 00:15:16
Joining us now is Ben Whitegarten.
He has a story out that's very important about how our taxpayer dollars are subsidizing the Democrats boot on the ground operation.
So our taxpayer dollars are helping fund the Democrats GOTV operation.
Ben, welcome to the program.
Tell us about it.
Charlie, thanks for having me.
And yes, this is a really remarkable story about the processes and how the processes and rules are being exploited in the run-up to the 2024 election to likely try to effectuate the same thing that we saw in 2020, infamously described in that Molly Ball expose about that election as a shadow campaign to quote unquote fortify it.
And what we see in 2024 is an expansion of, if not an improvement upon, those efforts in three different ways that I identify in this piece.
One of them has been dubbed Biden Bucks.
And this is an executive order which notably was executed in March of 2021 with Democrats recognizing maybe they wouldn't be able to push federal legislation that would effectively federalize election processes in the face of Republican opposition.
And what this order did was it called on every single federal agency, over 600 offices, to develop these strategic plans to register and mobilize voters with a particular focus on underrepresented or purportedly marginalized populations,
something that had never been done before at the federal level, something which may well flout not just federalist principles, but the Constitution, since electioneering and election rules and processes really reside with the states.
And then, of course, prohibitions on electioneering among federal officials.
But what this said is that every single office ought to be engaged in registering and mobilizing voters.
And not only that, but they ought to partner with so-called nonpartisan third party organizations to drive out the vote.
And the administration has hidden the strategic plans, made it very difficult for anyone to obtain them except through litigating over FOIA requests.
But what we have seen, based upon information that has come out, is that the administration is trying to use everything from naturalization ceremonies to food stamp delivery to using federal work study funds to pay students to engage and get out the vote efforts.
And in almost every single instance, it appears that overwhelmingly, the government agencies themselves are communicating with likely Democrat voters based upon the demographics that interact with federal agencies.
So you have these myriad touch points of federal agencies under the command of the Joe Biden administration trying to drive out voters in 2024.
And the groups that were behind this effort, by the way, should be noting, the leader of the architect of it was DeMos, a progressive think tank.
And if you look at the groups who have been putting out these progress reports on how the administration is doing in implementing the executive order, it's virtually all left-wing, progressive nonprofits.
And they claim that if fully implemented, the order will generate 3.5 million new or updated voter registrations every single year.
So you can imagine how potentially decisive that would be when you're talking about a presidential election, for example, that's likely going to hinge on thousands of votes in a few states.
So that's just effort number one.
And we can move on to two and three if you like, or we can keep talking about Biden bucks, either way.
Yeah, please keep going.
Ben, please keep going.
So after Biden bucks, we've got the exploitation of charitable organizations.
And these 501c3s are barred from engaging in electioneering political activity, but they are allowed to engage in voter registration drives.
And so Democrats have devised a sort of ingenious plan to use these so-called charitable organizations led generally by progressives, funded at infinite levels by private donors on a tax-deductible basis.
So without the limits that you would have in normal campaign finance context, and then also unlock potentially hundreds of millions or billions of dollars from private foundations that would also be barred from engaging in political activity.
And they flood hundreds of millions of dollars annually into these 501c3s to drive voter registration and mobilization, like the administration.
Why is it putatively nonpartisan, but actually partisan, despite the fact that they don't say they're supporting Democrat candidates or Democrat causes?
The explicit purpose of these voter registration and mobilization drives is to target, again, quote unquote, underrepresented voters, single women, minorities, et cetera, and specifically in swing states and Democrat super PACs, one of which, mind the gap, is sort of a moneyball style, analytics-focused, powerful and influential Democrat super PAC.
It says that contributing to these quote-unquote nonpartisan nonprofits gives by far the highest return on investment For Democrat voters and is most essential, the best way you could spend your money to win in presidential elections.
So, you get these tax-exempt organizations, individuals can contribute without limit, and you unlock hundreds of millions of dollars in funds previously locked from engaging in political causes from these charitable foundations.
And then, last but not least, there's Zuckerbucks 2.0.
And despite the fact that two dozen states have put in restrictions on private financing of public election offices to likely drive out the mail-in ballot vote, for example, in blue jurisdictions, as we saw back in 2020,
there's still an $80 million effort being undertaken over five years, largely in the states that have not put up these Zuckerbucks restrictions, to once again have these left-leaning nonprofits be the recipients of and coordinate with election offices, likely in key jurisdictions, to try and drive out the votes.
So, these are three massive, comprehensive efforts that, again, in a hugely tight election, likely to be decided in a few states by thousands of votes, could prove decisive.
And there's not a comparable counterweight, anything remotely resembling it on the Republican side.
So, let's get into the text.
So, how much taxpayer money is being thrown towards a Biden get out the vote strategy?
Do you have a ballpark number?
Well, we know that there have been roughly $500 million annually going towards just these 501c3s, some percentage of which, and it's usually at least going back to 2020 and the 2022 cycles, you're talking in the tens of millions of dollars just to the 501c3s, and then you get that tax-exempt, tax-deductible benefit to it if you are the donor.
This is part of a really $1.3 billion annual effort for Democrats to fund 501c4s and other organizations that's really without compare on the Republican side.
But in terms of the federal government, it's anyone's guess the total value in terms of man hours or dollars being put forth to execute and implement this executive order.
But obviously, you're talking the full weight of every single federal agency.
And the Office of Personnel Management has also passed rules essentially giving federal officers time off to be able to engage in these activities as well.
So, we don't even have a ballpark estimate for it, but you can imagine the full weight of the federal government.
That's without compare.
And obviously, there's no way that Republicans could have a counterpart to it because Republicans don't control the executive branch of government.
So, I want to just reiterate: the 501c3s are prohibited from engaging in electioneering.
We know that very well.
We have a C3 and a C4 at Turning Point USA and Turning Point Action, and we're very clear about it.
But the C3s are so cavalier, they take this donor money and they basically make the pitch, like, yeah, we're supposed to be nonpartisan, but give us the money and it's going to help Democrats anyway.
There has to be something there, and you said there's nothing comparable on the right.
At the entire conservative ecosystem, can you point to any organizations or groups outside of what we're trying to do at Turning Point that are trying to fix this problem at the size or scale that the Democrats have?
I couldn't find in my analysis anything remotely comparable.
People who study the activities of these sorts of groups have estimated that maybe there's 1% of funding on the right comparable to what we see on the left with these 501c3s.
And look, the tactic is shrewd.
It's the same tactic that we see in terms of trying to get around restrictions on affirmative action by proxy, where you don't say we're targeting Democrat voters.
We say we're targeting underrepresented or marginalized communities, communities that don't vote at the percentages they should vote.
And that's a clever way who disproportionately vote Democrat when they are registered.
And that's a clever way of getting around the restrictions.
And what I found in doing my reporting in this story was there's an assumption on the part of the right that Republicans would get taken to the woodshed by the IRS were they to engage in anything remotely resembling what the Democrats are engaged in because there's a chill in the air that goes back to the Tea Party's targeting under the Obama administration.
Now, maybe that's a cop-out.
Maybe it is that Republicans simply have not developed the reflexes and the tools on the ground or the focus to try to build anything comparable to Democrats.
Maybe if there was a similar mousetrap to what Democrats have devised, Democrats would already be far ahead.
And I think it's worth noting that that Molly Ball piece, it made it seem as if this dominant Democrat electioneering effort came out of nowhere.
But in the piece, one of those interviewed who plays an essential role leading one of these organizations that's dominated in terms of registering mail-in voters, he basically said that what happened in 2020 was the culmination of multiple decades.
So if you're talking about hundreds of millions or billions of dollars over multiple decades, of course, Democrats will have perfected that effort.
And obviously, there's been nothing remotely resembling that kind of push on the right.
It's such an important topic.
I hope everyone understands this could determine November.
And if in November we get some bad news, oh, Joe Biden wins, we have 1% of the infrastructure on the ground that the Democrats have.
1%.
And it's a permanent multi-billion dollar infrastructure.
So, Ben, we're trying our best at turning point, hiring hundreds of full-time people, building infrastructure.
It's kind of what we're known for.
But, Ben, why is it the conservative side is so bad at this?
Is it simply a money problem or is it an attitude problem?
I mean, I could walk down Washington, D.C. and point to dozens of worthless conservative think tanks that have hundreds of millions of dollars in endowments and they sit around and write white papers that no one reads and employ scholars that have no influence.
But hey, at least they get lunch catered to them every single day.
And literally one of them has a kitchen, a full-time service kitchen where, you know what I'm talking about, where they get nice meals every day.
Why is that conservatives spend money to build these massive do-nothing DC think tanks that circulate white papers while Democrats are really invested in using 501c3 money to build a mass leviathan?
What's going on?
Well, I think this points in part to a needed cultural shift, which may happen on the right as a consequence of the populist nationalist uprising that has shaken the party.
But obviously, there's still a fight between the holdouts, the establishment, and the new blood that's been injected.
But I also think that there is a cultural difference between the way Democrats and Republicans approach politics.
And this goes beyond my reportage and my assessment in this piece.
But what the left sought to do was use analytics, and this is dating back to the Obama years and pre-Obama years.
Use analytics and amass information to try and figure out how to best drive out the voters they need to win wherever they need to win, and then to use that power to drive home their agenda.
And obviously, that's the point of political parties.
But you do wonder sometimes on the Republican side, is that the goal among the majority of the GOP?
Is it to win and then wield power to reward your friends and punish your political opposition?
And not in a gratuitous way, but to deliver W's for your team and that you ran on for your constituents.
And on the right, I think it's very clear there does not seem to be the equivalent sort of cutthroat, serious, shrewd, cunning effort.
And I mean that in a not pejorative way that you have on the Democrat side.
And I'll even analogize this or sort of illustrating this.
I sat in in person in one of the hearings in the House Oversight Committee on the Biden family where Tony Bobolinski was testifying.
And if you saw in real life the Democrats up close, the Congressman Goldmans of the world and others and Raskin, they were at the throats of anyone and everyone on the Republican side.
They wanted to not only destroy and discredit, but embarrass and pain the Republican witnesses.
They would do anything to win.
No tactic would be too low.
The condescension was off the charts.
The anger and the arrogance, you could see it.
They were dripping with it.
But they are zealots for their cause at the end of the day.
And on the Republican side, you have to ask, what percentage are similarly, and again, I'm not talking a lot from a tactics perspective, but similarly serious and so devoted to beating the other side that they'll take the shrewdest possible measures necessary to win.
And part of that, you could say, well, maybe, look, Republicans, we have real diversity of ideas on our side, but diversity is not your strength necessarily when you're up against a machine where everyone toes the line and moves in lockstep, even if they have their own differences internally.
So I think part of it is a cultural or generational issue.
Part of it is you have incumbent consultant class, think tank class.
And like any bureaucracy, it's very tough to shake it out of its stupor or to make a change to it.
But part of it also, and this is my observation, my individual observation, is that Democrats want to win and they want to wield power.
And when they get that power, they use it to the nth degree to drive home in their agenda.
And if they fail, minimally they move the Overton window.
And you have to ask among a large percentage of elected Republicans and many in the Republican establishment and beyond, are they similarly dedicated and do they understand what's at stake?
Democrats Want to Win 00:00:41
And those may sound like rhetorical questions, but I think they're open questions that deserve answers as well.
Yeah, well, no, our side does not want to win and we're not playing to win.
We just hope that a victory will just fall from the sky.
And Democrats are really interested in the infrastructure and the ballot chasing voter registration.
And we are not.
And maybe we'll win, maybe not.
But the Democrats are certainly playing to win and we're playing to lose comfortably.
Ben, thank you so much.
Thanks for having me, Charlie.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email us as alwaysfreedom at charliekirk.com.
Thanks so much for listening and God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk dot com.
Export Selection