PBD Podcast | EP 126 | Senior Trump Advisor: Jason Miller
FaceTime or Ask Patrick any questions on https://minnect.com/
PBD Podcast Episode 126. In this episode, Patrick Bet-David is joined by Adam Sosnick and CEO of GETTR, and Senior Trump Advisor, Jason Miller.
Sign up for GETTR here: https://bit.ly/3JEwXwj
Follow Jason Miller here: https://bit.ly/3h4EacR
Download the podcasts on all your favorite platforms https://bit.ly/3sFAW4N
Text: PODCAST to 310.340.1132 to get added to the distribution list
About Guests:
Jason Miller is an American communications strategist, political adviser and CEO, best known as the chief spokesman for the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign and transition of Donald Trump. He was a Senior Adviser to the Trump 2020 re-election campaign.
Adam “Sos” Sosnick has lived a true rags to riches story. He hasn’t always been an authority on money. Follow Adam on Instagram: https://bit.ly/2PqllTj. You can also check out his weekly SOSCAST here: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLw4s_zB_R7I0VW88nOW4PJkyREjT7rJic
Connect with Patrick on social media: https://linktr.ee/patrickbetdavid
About the host:
Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media, the #1 YouTube channel for entrepreneurship with more than 3 million subscribers. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal bestseller Your Next Five Moves (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
Bet-David is passionate about shaping the next generation of leaders by teaching the fundamentals of entrepreneurship and personal development while inspiring people to break free from limiting beliefs to achieve their dreams.
Follow the guests in this episode:
Jason Miller: https://bit.ly/3h4EacR
Adam Sosnick: https://bit.ly/2PqllTj
To reach the Valuetainment team you can email: info@valuetainment.com
Check out PBD's official website here: https://bit.ly/32tvEjH
0:00 - Start
1:15 - Why Getter is the fastest growing social platform in history
6:02 - Why does canceling someone only make them stronger?
12:33 - What happened with Nick Fuentes?
26:29 - Gettr vs. Twitter
30:21 - Joe Rogan Controversy
33:00 - Truth Social
45:16 - Will Gettr & Truth Social ever team up?
46:52 - Will Trump run in 2024?
49:16 - Will Trump Run Against DeSantis in 2024?
56:12 - Who will be against Trump in 2024
1:03:49 - Is Trump open to feedback or criticism?
1:06:44 - Jason Miller on Jan 6th.
1:15:46 - Durham report
1:27:16 - How important is the Durham report?
1:41:05 - Remington settles with Sandy Hook families
1:47:24 - Will Texas turn blue?
Okay, so episode 126 today, folks, we got a lot to cover.
A lot's been going on, and we have Jason Miller here with us, who was a former senior Trump advisor, I believe on the 2016 campaign, as well as you did some work on a 2020 impeachment that you were working with with Trump.
So before we get started, thank you for being out here.
If you don't mind taking a moment and introducing yourself, yeah, thank you very much.
For those who have not had the chance to meet before, their new audience, currently the CEO of Getter, which is the fastest growing social media platform in history, fastest ever to 1 million, 2 million, 3 million, 4.
Now we're almost up to 5 million people since launching last July.
Very excited.
What I do before that, traditional Republican campaigns.
I was a senior advisor for President Trump in 2020 and 2016.
Quarterbacked his second impeachment effort, the one in February after he had already left office.
But now I'm fully vested in the free speech movement, trying to make the social media app go.
And I think $5 million in after seven months is a pretty good start.
I don't think it's a bad start.
So fastest anyone's ever done to $5 million.
Correct.
Facebook took about 10 months to get to a million.
Twitter took a couple of years.
Now, in fairness, a little bit of a different time.
Smartphones are a bit different, but it just shows you the scale and how quickly it's moving.
And I think it's because we're at the convergence of what's hot politically, but also what's hot with the economy.
Jason, didn't you get like a million on day one or week one?
Something like that.
How did you guys do on how long did it take to get to a million?
Three days.
Three days to a million.
Three days.
Was that because of Joe Rogan, or that had nothing to do with Joe?
That was, so Joe came along six months later.
Although we're a million in three days, a million and a half in about 10 days.
We're at 3 million people at the end of this last year, end of 2021.
After Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson and Dr. Robert Malone and some other folks, we grew by 50% by a million and a half users just in the month of January of this year.
So we're off to a great start and the surge is real.
So go ahead, do you think that's a function of economic supply and demand?
There's a major demand for a free speech platform.
Is there something specific about Getter that people said, I got to get on that specific platform?
Or was it just sort of a sign of the times where it's like, look, clearly the big tech overlords are sort of limiting and shadow banning.
And hey, here's a cool new platform I can check out.
What's the unique both?
And the reason why I say that is I always kind of use the analogy to channel my inner George Bailey.
Every time Twitter or Facebook or YouTube kicks someone off of their platform, another Getter angel gets its wings.
And so it might be terrible for democracy, but when they kick people off, they look and say, you know what, what else is there?
They see Getter and they want to come on board.
But part of the reason is, and, you know, Patrick, you hit on this in a really great segment about a year ago where you said, I'm tired of Republicans whining and saying, you know, big tech, you're bad, but then not doing anything about it.
I've heard that and I said, you know what?
I am going to do it.
I'm going to put some money behind it.
I'm going to go build a real platform.
Here's the one dynamic I would have added to your very eloquent going off of a year ago.
People have come up with alternative platforms before, but the user interface hasn't been that good.
The functionalities look clunky, kind of junior varsity or B team.
Nobody looks and says, hey, Twitter, your functionality is poor.
Your user experience is poor.
I want to go to some other platform.
They say, I'm tired of the political discrimination.
I want to move.
When you launch a new platform, you have to be as good, if not better, as the big tech platforms if you want users to stay.
Even if people are turned off ideologically by what Twitter's doing, it has to be a top-notch product.
And that's what we've set out to do with Getter.
So first of all, I applaud you for doing that because I think, you know, the fact that somebody is saying, let me go out there and do this, everybody's talking, let me do something about it and create another alternative for them.
And I think in today's climate, the current CEO of Twitter probably helps you more than Dorsey does because he seems to be more about what account got canceled yesterday, 336,000 followers or two days ago, just because they took a screenshot of other people's tweets and they shut them down.
Yeah, so for anyone who is watching and listening, there's an account called Defiant L's, Defiant, and then a capital L apostrophe S.
This is a great account where all they do is say, here's a tweet from, yeah, Defiant L's.
Oh, they're back.
They're back now.
That's phenomenal.
And they're also on Getter.
Just for anyone watching, Defiant L's is on Getter, which is great.
So they were never canceled there.
That's crazy because they were at 335 two days ago.
They're at 510 now.
So this cancellation got them more eyeballs.
So that went to your point also from your segment from a year ago where you said, Do you just elevate people off of some of these cancellations?
Which the answer is yes.
I mean, take a look at Nikki Minaj, for example, or Kyrie Irving.
Not two people who you'd say have traditional bases of support, say in the right of center type space.
But now that there were efforts to try to cancel them because of their positions on COVID vacc treatments, things like that, now they become almost pop culture heroes.
And sometimes they don't even have to be someone who's take a look at Enos Camter Freedom, who was with the Boston Celtics and then was just released by the Rockets and what pretty clearly is a retaliatory pushback because he's been going off on the NBA in China.
And we'll get into China a little bit more later.
He's now a hero to people all over the world because he's standing up to the CCP.
So some of these efforts to cancel people, but I want to stick on the Defiant L's for one moment, just to tell you the idiocy of what's going on here.
All this account does, I shouldn't say all because that discounts it, but what they do is they take an old tweet and a current tweet, and it's just basically the person taking a loss.
Here's where they've contradicted themselves.
And some of these things that they find are so damning, like you don't know whether to laugh or to cry.
You're saying it's contradictory, bitch.
Yes, hypocrisy.
All it does.
But all it does is post what someone said before and what they're saying now, just to absolutely thunder these people.
And they got taken down literally for just posting, just taking screenshots from Twitter.
Yeah, so why do you think that is?
That when you try to cancel somebody or you basically expose the hypocrisy, they only come back stronger.
What is that?
Okay, so first of all, let's talk whether this strategy works or not.
I think it does work somewhat, okay?
Yiannopoulos, what was his name?
Something Yiannopoulos.
Milo Yiannopoulos, right?
You remember when he was Milo Yiannopoulos?
He used to be everywhere, right?
I mean, everywhere you saw him, 18 million views, 11 million views.
Yay, conservatives.
And he would talk shit.
He was a troll.
He was like in the political side.
He would be the Jake Paul of the Project.
And he was eventually, boom, he got canceled, all this other stuff.
When's the last time you heard about him?
It's got to be six years, maybe five years, four years.
It's been a minute, right, since you've heard his name.
So it does work with certain people, right?
Now, in regards to silencing somebody who has a message that makes sense and they're talking truth, all you're doing is you're going to elevate that person, period.
It's just not going to work for a couple of different reasons.
Number one, that philosophy works if I'm living in Iran.
That philosophy is a silencing philosophy.
Of course it does.
That philosophy works if you're living in China.
That philosophy works if you're living in North Korea.
That philosophy doesn't work in America still today.
It doesn't work still today because capitalism allows you to go compete against those guys.
But I got a question for him on Getter.
So a few things on Getter.
Number one, what I want to know from the business standpoint.
Number one is backing, who's backing you up and how much money you guys got in the bank.
Number two is your servers.
Who's your servers at AWS?
Who are you guys with?
And number three is which app are you on?
Can I get it on iOS?
Can I get it on Droid?
If you can address those three things.
So funding, hosting, and apps.
Yeah.
So taking those in reverse order.
So we're on all the apps.
You can get it on the Apple Store.
You can get it on Google Play.
Fantastic.
You can get it anywhere.
And this is critical for the following reason.
If we're going to have alternative platforms that can actually challenge big tech, you have to be able to scale from this where it kind of rolls into the business side.
If you're simply a web-based platform, okay, no one's going to use it.
I can tell you that for Getter, 87% of our people access it by app and everyone's on their mobile.
That's what they're doing.
Yes, there are 13% who are web only.
And that's primarily in a couple countries where they're just their different things they're doing.
So they got to do it by desktop.
But so 87%.
So you have to be on the app stores.
I mean, if you want to scale, you can be much more limited, much more narrow, but you're never going to become the challenger.
With regard to on the monetization front and kind of where we are.
So we're going to start our online appreciation and tipping for content creators in April.
So that's coming up in about two months here.
Tipping like a Patreon type of deal where I can tip more like a super chat type of a more like a Patreon, except the difference is whereas we have Apple that's been taking 35% rips for in-app purchases.
That was obviously the Fortnite debate with Epic.
Rumble has said that they come in at 15% for a lot of these.
We're going to drop it down to do something like in a 5% to 7.5% range.
So then as people come over and say, wait a minute, I can host my show or do things on Getter and keep much more of that money.
So that's the chronologically, that's the first thing coming up.
We'll also start advertising in Q2.
What's going to be a little bit different about advertising is we have said that we will never sell or share any of your user data.
So we're going to build out.
We're going to do two things.
One, build out an in-platform advertising team.
So an outside advertiser, say, they want to advertise with us, we give them the specs and the demos and who they'll go to, but that data never goes to them.
There are never any third parties who have access to the data.
You essentially send us the creative and the messaging that we go and do the placement.
So you're never, if you sign up for Getter, you'll never find out that you're going to say text messages about buy this wine or buy this real estate, or never get emails saying here's, you know, fat loss supplements or something like that.
So you'll never get any of that.
But where it really gets exciting or where it starts to grow is we're going to launch a two coin crypto ecosystem payment platform in july.
Just a little bit ambitious right, it's not quite blue origin of going to the moon, but it's getting close uh, and so that's uh.
So where we're going with that, that's going to, I think, open the doors and expose a whole new uh essentially community, not just in the Us but globally, to the benefits of the digital economy, to crypto.
Uh, for the opportunities.
Well, both a stable coin and a fluctuating coin.
Uh, I think that Facebook.
I don't think the real reason why they pulled back on Dm was because of the regulatory challenges with uh the stable coin.
I think it was more the fact they realized that their brand is so tarnished that they were never going to be able to scale and grow.
That because people just don't want to give them any more data.
Sorry if that's a little too nerdy or too about the Facebook crypto platform that they were building.
Yeah Libra, is that what they were?
They had Libra and then they were.
Then DM was kind of their diamond.
Uh was their second effort and they largely abandoned it and scrapped it.
But there is a very clear yeah.
You don't really hear much about that.
They had a big launch with that and then no, and there there is a pathway in a platform to do it on the regulatory side, because when you tie something to the Us dollar, You go from basically on a fluctuating coin, there's like Wild Wild West, no regulation virtually.
You go to a stable coin, and then you have all the regulation in the world.
That's why it's a little bit of a challenge, but I think we have a good format and structure to go and do it.
So, this is kind of the cool thing.
Right now, we're the competitor to, say, Twitter and Facebook.
Smaller, but growing.
I mean, hey, Twitter stock is down 50% since we launched last July.
So, I'm just saying, no coincidences.
Facebook's had to go and rename their company.
Not all entirely because of us, but a lot of the tech stock is down on us.
Modify is down on us.
A lot of the tech stops down, but they certainly haven't held themselves.
So, right now, largely Twitter and Facebook competitor.
We just launched yesterday the beta version of Vision, which is our short video clip format competitor to TikTok and Instagram Reels.
That's so much of what everyone in the 18 to 34 does.
So, you have that?
The beta version, beta testing.
So, verified users, so a few thousand have that right now.
It'll open up to everyone, say, four to six weeks, let's say, just as we scale up.
But then, as we launch the Getter Pay, which will be, again, that two-coin crypto ecosystem and the payment platform, then we become a marketplace competitor to Apple Pay, Alipay, WeChat Pay, plus also think PayPal, American Express, Visa, a number of these others.
So, where we're going with this platform, it's the all-in-one free speech platform where your freedom of speech, expression, and controlling your own financial destiny is where we want to go.
So, somebody just put a super chat and they said, what happened on Nick Fuentes?
If you want to address that, yeah, no, Nick Fuentes was a user who we removed from the platform, and he was inviting people to be a part of his, be a part of a group that I think is pretty clearly racist and doesn't fit within our terms of service.
And look, you're never going to get everything perfect.
You're going to have people who are critics from different sides, but I'm not going to allow Getter to become the okay Cupid of the white nationalist set.
I'm just not.
What did Nick Fuentes say?
What group was it?
So, the Groipers.
Okay, I got it.
So, Nick, if you want to pull up his Wikipedia, Nick Joseph Fuentes is an American far-right and white nationalist political commentator, live streamer.
The Anti-Defamation League has described Fuentes as a white supremacist, a former YouTuber.
His channel was permanently suspended in February 2020 for violating YouTube.
Hate speech, got it.
So, it's not like you kicked off.
Fuentes has feuded with Turning Point USA and its founder Charlie Kirk for supporting views that Fuentes believes to be insufficiently conservative in October 2010, followers when Groupers began heckling Turning Point Culture War tour, including a speaking event for Donald Trump June.
Okay, got it.
So, it's not like you kicked off a liberal.
You kicked off somebody that would be a far-right person that you kicked off of Getter.
Look, and it's I don't even think it's an ideological thing.
I mean, I think when you're getting- But it is, though, because Twitter, you know, most people would say a lot of people that Twitter kicks off are people that are on the right, not necessarily a lot of people on the left.
That's what I'm saying.
But I think there's a difference between someone who is actively preaching or recruiting for white nationalism versus, say, a political ideology.
And in my opinion, it might be arguing over semantics on this one, so maybe I'm looking at it too narrowly.
But again, a Getter is a platform where we do have terms of service that are pretty clearly stated.
We don't have any tolerance for racial or religious epithets.
We don't have pornography.
There's plenty of places to get porn.
Twitter's got a lot of pornography.
Twitter's got a lot of pornography.
I guess you're not sure if you're a person.
You followed me yesterday, but Twitter allows you to put pornography.
Oh, porn.
Okay, got it.
You know what porn is?
Porn is like a porn hub.
Yeah, we can take it out.
What is what?
How do you, with that being said, how do you balance hate speech and freedom of speech?
Where does the line?
That's a good question because it's leading me to the next question.
Yeah, so a really good question.
And again, we think what we've found with Getter is the sweet spot of the bat, where we allow people to express themselves politically, where they know that they'll never be censored, algorithmed, deplatformed, shadow banned, any of that nonsense for expressing their political beliefs, whether you're on the left or the right, where some people join the platform aren't even that into politics.
Maybe they just don't like big tech or they're inherently distrustful of it and they want to try a new platform.
So typically in most Western countries, your free speech rights extend right up to the point where you start to infringe on someone else's rights.
Obviously, things such as doxing, which we had to go and suspend a very popular account for doxing just the other day.
They put up someone's address and we had to go and take that down.
That's not something we put on.
What is this term doxing?
Doxing is when you go and put out, say, publicly identifiable or publicly sensitive information.
So you can't post somebody's, say, home address and say, hey, we dislike this person.
Here's their home address.
Like, that's what you'd call doxing.
Or here is someone's credit card number or here is someone's social security number.
That's the kind of thing that's doxing.
Or the other thing, too, if someone's outright pushing for illegal behavior or threatening self-harm.
For example, if someone said, hey, go out there and if you cut your left arm off, you can cure COVID.
Okay, that would be the type of thing where that would be something that would potentially lead to self-harm.
But your point, Adam, that you bring up is there's always going to be that rub between a free speech pirate who says, any restriction, wait a minute, are you being hypocritical?
Or people are saying, we want to make sure that we keep the platform safe.
And again, we're never going to get it right 100% of the time, but our only ideological driver is the fact that we want to make sure that people support free speech and that we oppose cancel culture.
So there's no political discrimination that goes into it like the big tech platforms where they pick winners and losers based on whether they agree with you.
Well, what did Nick say that got him kicked off?
What was specifically?
What was the message he sent?
He posted a message that was effectively recruiting people or trying to identify with, trying to organize who are additional grapers that were on the platform.
What's wrong with that?
Because then you're inviting, then that's trying to organize people who are a white nationalist group that we think doesn't fit with our terms of service.
Okay, so then so, okay, so you got to realize I don't agree with what he agrees with.
The part I'm thinking about is if your position is free thinkers, you're pushing that off, then somebody may say, well, there is criteria to it.
And the one thing, Pat, just to be clear here, there are plenty of places where he can go and preach white nationalism.
And if you want to go and preach white nationalism, then you can go to a different platform.
It's your choice as a consumer.
We believe that our community does not want to see that.
We believe that if we're going to scale, if we're going to be a true competitor to big tech, these are the parameters that we're going to keep people safe within this.
And hey, some people are going to agree with it, some people aren't.
But what we're providing is so much different and so much better than any of the big technologies.
It's not fully free thinker, though.
Then it's not fully free thinker because you're not allowing me to think for myself that I disagree with the guy.
It is free thinking to a limit.
Because let me explain what I mean by that.
And every platform.
Every platform is.
And that's leading me to.
So, for example, I like interviewing communists.
Genuinely, one of my favorite interviews.
When I have a guy that I'm sitting with that's a communist, I enjoy that interview.
I know it sounds weird, and I've not done one, not two, not three.
Any major name that's a communist, I want him sitting here.
The only reason they're not, I haven't interviewed them is because they've said no, not because I haven't invited them.
I enjoy talking to them because I want to know what makes you think the way you do.
And I let the audience say, screw Pat, I don't agree with them.
That was unfair.
Or you know what?
I don't agree with the other guy.
I agree with Pat.
Great, but they get to make a decision for themselves.
The part I think about, what gives us a lot of confidence in America?
What gives you and I a lot of confidence to live in America?
It's a piece of paper, right?
What is that piece of paper called?
Constitution.
The Constitution, right?
And why is it so powerful?
Because I can't just erase it and say, ah, you know what?
Yeah, I don't know.
You know, I don't know about this part.
The constitution is here's what the founding fathers founded this country on, right?
I think for a, you're a small virtual government right now.
But you got five million people living there.
You're a small state, essentially.
If you think about it, you're, what's a state with five million people?
Idaho, I don't know the number, but five million is a, you're a state, right?
Essentially.
Or you're a small country, okay?
That's out there.
But five million is five million.
And you are a virtual government, essentially.
You are a virtual nation, essentially.
So is Twitter, so is Facebook, so is YouTube.
That's what you're building.
I think the right way to do it, it's just my feedback.
You have to, you can take it, you cannot take it.
I just give them the feedback.
It's to put a constitution out there saying these are the things that will never be changed.
And here's what we're putting on paper.
So I go to the website and say, this is Getter's Constitution.
This is what we'll tolerate.
This is what we won't tolerate.
So I had a meeting at Jekyll Island and I pulled my guys aside and I took them out there and I'm showing them Rockefeller's house and I'm showing them all these guys' house.
It's a very good experience if you've been to Jekyll Island and in the room where the federal, you know, the whole Federal Reserve got started with the whole meetings and all that stuff in 1906 or when it became official.
We're in the room.
We're having all these conversations, a sense of the historic.
And I said, I want us to write out our constitution of I we never.
Okay.
So I will dot dot dot.
We had 13 I's, we had 13 we's, we have 13 nevers.
So the I is, I will set the best example as a leader.
I, that are, okay, Is, right?
The we was, we collectively will do XYZ.
The never was, never will we compromise, dot, dot, dot.
Never will we accept dot dot dot.
Never will we do.
The reason why I share that with our field force is because if somebody sees that and they say, yeah, I don't like it, they leave.
But if somebody sees that and they say, oh my God, this is home.
I'm here to stay.
And not only am I here to stay, I'm going to tell the world about the I, we never, right?
I'm going to go tell the world about this whole thing.
I think the right virtual government to do it the right way is to create a constitution that they themselves will be held accountable if they cross the line with that constitution.
I may be wrong, but I think it's very important for the user to have trust with you.
I completely agree.
And I think that to that point, so we have our terms of service, which largely, I mean, it's a contract.
It's the one thing that people sign or that they check off when they join anything, whether it's Twitter or Facebook or nobody reads terms of service.
I was about to say that.
Zero.
So to that point, that's obviously very legalistic.
And the reason why it reads legalistic is because it's your contract.
So we're actually, we just hired a brand new director of moderation who's going through and actually putting together the formal community guidelines that'll have very specifics of rules of the road, essentially.
I think that'll probably take, it's written now, but we're just going through some refinement.
A couple of few weeks, we'll have that posted.
So to your point, that will then be our constitution that we post with more granular, more kind of real-world details of kind of the do's and don'ts for the platform so people fully understand it.
And like I said, look, we're not going to get everything right every time.
We're going to continue to grow.
There are different dynamics, different situations that come up.
And I knew I was going to spend a lot of time on moderation when I took on this challenge, especially after the deplatforming of January 6th and everything.
I didn't maybe know I was going to spend quite this much time on moderation.
And keep in mind, right now we're largely talking about the U.S. I'm dealing with on the global level.
So then I'm dealing with Ofcom with regard to the U.K. I'm dealing with the German law enforcement.
I'm dealing with people all around the world.
And look, Getter is, and one of the kind of the unique things about it, we're only 50% U.S.
And prior to the Rogan explosion, Rogan and Tucker coming on board, we were only 37% U.S.
I made the commitment when we launched this thing, this is going to be a global platform, not just because of where I wanted to go for scale, but also to make sure it wasn't an American echo chamber.
And so Brazil is about 15%.
Brazil second?
Brazil second.
Who's third?
So U.K. is third and just below 10.
Germany is right behind them, and France is right behind them.
And then Japan is, then Japan and Canada are like number six and seven.
And so the countries where we have teams where we're outworking, obviously the U.S., Brazil, U.K., France, Germany.
And then I just expanded this quarter for Japan, India, and Colombia.
And so those are kind of our big targets.
I think India is good for you.
I think India is good for you because there's a lot of free thinkers in India, and their enemy is also the same enemy, which is China.
They're not a fan of China.
They banned 100 apps in China.
And so to that point, it's almost like we synced up beforehand.
The drivers where we found in a lot of our international markets where we're targeting, obviously, you can get us globally unless the government's blocking it.
Actually, literally the day we kicked off, I think we had 10 or 20,000 people sign up for Venezuela.
And then after that first day, no one's silent.
They just like no one else is getting in.
But what we found is proximity to communism and socialism is a huge driver.
So for example, people in Colombia and Brazil, where you're seeing all the people fleeing from Venezuela, are massive drivers.
South Florida, where you have such a big Cuban-American community, massive getter-user base.
People who are concerned about India, as you said.
Also, elections that are coming up in countries where there are elections in 2022, you see a lot more political activity.
People are kind of supercharged and paying attention to it.
And then, of course, the big one is where you have both big tech and governments who are coming in and trying to silence people.
And there's a huge difference.
I mean, you take a look at Colombia, which literally has a no-censorship clause in their own constitution, or it's essentially an amendment that they added to Colombia.
Brazil doesn't have their version of a U.S. First Amendment.
They do not have any aspect of free speech, which kind of blew my mind.
This is a major democracy.
You know, certainly in South America, a big power.
I mean, there's supermarket to the world when it comes to the beef markets and other things.
You have the single biggest Japanese community outside of Japan, and they don't have that.
In fact, I met the deputy, Carol D'Atoni, who's writing their version of the First Amendment.
And I was like, wait a minute, you guys don't have that?
She goes, nowhere in our Constitution does it protect it.
We take for granted our First Amendment rights, ability to express ourselves.
Obviously, look at your background where you grew up in the UK.
No question.
I mean, people get killed for being on the wrong side of the street.
It's pretty nutty.
But anyways, sorry to hog the conversation.
So I'm going to go through a couple of things here.
So I looked up Parlor.
I'm looking at Parler's data.
Parlor got started September of 2018.
They grew from whatever they had to 20 million users.
And right now, they got maybe half a million to 700,000 active users.
Rumble, who Chris Pavlovsky, he was with us, what, a couple weeks ago?
Matter of fact, the day he announced the $100 million offer to Rogan two days prior to that.
We had the conversation about him specifically doing something like that.
And he went out there and did it.
Ballsy move, good for him.
He obviously turned it down.
But everybody said, hey, this guy's got that kind of money.
More power to you, right?
And I think they said they have, what number did he say?
In the month of January, they had 39 million active users.
But you got to realize they've been around for nine years, and it's not like they just got started eight months ago and they're going to 5 million, right?
And he is also trying to do what he's doing, but he's raising capital.
I want to go back to the part about raising money.
Have you guys started raising money?
Yes, I'm sorry.
Yes.
So we are funded by two international investment firms, one based in London, one based in the New York area.
So it's completely privately funded right now.
We still have, what do I, I think I'm somewhere in the neighborhood of like 10, 20 million in the bank.
But obviously, we know that it's a longer run to when we actually go and start monetizing the platform.
Obviously, the first aspects of revenue generation won't come until April, and then where it really takes off is this summer.
But our backers know that there's a lot of money, quite frankly, to be made in this space, but you have to spend a lot of money to get a lot of money.
A lot of money.
And here's the thing, too: we talked about kind of the pure dollar challenges.
Just being a competitor platform, the extra, the way that the bar is raised extra high just on attracting engineers, attracting talent, because everyone is so concerned about getting blacklisted by Google or Facebook.
You know, uh-oh, what would happen if big tech saw that I worked with a challenger?
Would this stop me from getting jobs or going to the cool parties?
And what a great point.
Put on a resume nine months at Getter.
What were you doing at Gitter?
Two and a half years at Gitter, two and a half years at Rumble.
I can see that.
Blacklisted permanently to work.
Is that a challenge for the engineers that you're hiring?
Is that a challenge?
So, you know, I'll tell you on this.
It was at the beginning.
It's less so now.
In fact, a couple of weeks ago, we hired someone who had competing offers from Google and from us, and they turned down Google and they came with us.
And I was like, you know, holy, you know what?
I'm like, really?
Like, you're turning on Google to come with us.
And the person said, look, I've been impressed.
I was a little skeptical when you guys launched.
I thought it might be like the other platforms.
It immediately got kicked off or got banned.
I've seen what you guys have done, and I'm just so sick of the discrimination.
He goes, I'm not even a Republican.
I'm an independent.
But the fact that if you're like, if independent in California basically means that you're Republican, but you're afraid to have your registration be that, which I can't blame him.
And he goes, just everybody knows, like, oh, you're one of them.
And he goes, I'm just so sick of that discrimination and behavior.
I want to go a place where at least, look, he's not going to be some card-carrying Republican, but at least he feels free.
So for YouTube's alternative is Rumble.
Every time YouTube screws up, Rumble does well.
Chris does well, and they get users.
So Twitter's alternative used to be Parlor, right?
Parlor was the alternative to Twitter.
Was Parliament an alternative to Facebook?
I think it was.
I think, obviously, let them describe themselves, but probably more of a competitor to Twitter.
And I would say that where we started is you just pull up on the screen our timeline, our scroll.
I would say initially, most closely a marketplace competitor to Twitter.
Very clean, by the way.
It's very clean.
Our engineers are good.
When I first came on board, and obviously I launched it, but there were engineers working on it before I came on board.
The guy who started this, he's now like in his elite engineer.
He's now in his mid-50s, went to USC undergrad, USC grad school, worked for all the big companies like McDonnell Douglas and Oracle.
And the brain on this guy is so great.
And our CTO that we have in place now, the guy has five degrees from MIT.
And when he said that in the interview, I was like, okay, this guy's lying.
Go run a background check.
Who has five degrees from MIT?
And he's like, yeah, I think like school stuff is fun and I can do it in the evenings and weekends.
I'm like, what's wrong with it?
Like this guy's brain is so big.
Our deputy CTO went to Xinghua, which is like the Harvard plus Yale plus Stanford of China.
He's now here living in the U.S. and will be permanently living here in the U.S.
The brains on these guys are so big.
I mean, I'm just the pretty face, but these guys are that was a joke for anyone who's not seen.
I like that.
I like the way you do that.
I'm definitely not the pretty face.
I like the way you did that.
I have the voice for radio for whenever had it.
But it's a clean look.
These guys are so smart because, again, the two things that I said right at the beginning, I want this to be a global company that can scale.
It has to look as good, if not better, than anything big tech is putting out.
Otherwise, people are going to walk up and say, eh, you know, Twitter might be a bunch of you-know-whats, but their functionality is better.
Did you address what's his name?
Rogan said when he got on your platform and he says, All of a sudden I had 9.2 million followers, and I don't have 9.2 million followers.
I think you addressed that.
You said you showed how many you would have that have to still join, but how many are Getter followers, right?
There's something that you guys have.
And so it's, again, this is one where self-inflicted error easily could have been what happened is the front half of our engineering got out of sorts with our back end.
We just started rolling it out for a number of users where when you post on Getter, it cross-posts it shows up on Twitter, which is great.
Then you don't have to go and bounce around because a lot of people have audiences, especially content creators or people who are in kind of the messaging space or commentators.
What happened was we got out there and showed here's what the total reach is.
And so I had the combined Twitter and Getter followers.
That's now split up.
So you say, here's how many getter-specific and here's how many total.
So say if you were to post something on Getter and you have cross-posting enabled, then you see how many what your total reach is.
We should have had that done early on.
It should have been the same time as the back end because the back end is just now catching up.
We've addressed it, spoke with Rogan's producer.
Again, you're going to make mistakes with a startup.
It should have been more clearly spelled out, but we fixed that.
Okay.
Sounds good.
And in regards to active users right now, what was your active, active users who were on the website last month?
What would be the active users?
Yeah.
So on the daily active user is right about obviously it fluctuates.
It's just under 500,000 daily.
Really?
Oh, yeah.
No, this is.
Daily 500,000.
That's a solid number.
Oh, it's a real solid number.
And the community is so engaged.
No, when I say that, people are like, wait, really?
Oh, no.
It is a big number.
And in fact, we've had just answered the question you didn't ask about following, say, Rogan and Tucker and these people coming on in January.
We grew by 50%.
We've held the audience.
And we actually last week had our two highest days ever as far as posting, as far as the number of posts.
Yes, as far as the activity.
So that number is held and actually gone up.
So we're holding and keeping mobilized these new people who came on in January.
So it hasn't been kind of the dip and then the drop.
We've been able to hold them.
The fact that there's alternatives, that's good for everybody.
You know, coffee bean is good for users, you know, because it makes Starbucks realize they have to constantly cheap coffee at Dunkin' Donuts is good for customers because it makes you think, hey, Starbucks cannot take you to $10 or whatever.
Burger King is very good for users who go to McDonald's.
I mean, neither one of them is good for you, but it's good for users because there's competition.
Can you show me Junior's last tweet in regards to Truth Network coming out?
I think he just posted this.
Time for some truth breaking.
This was Donald Trump's first post on Truth Social.
Get ready, your favorite president will see you soon.
I mean, he's always humble.
It's such a unique quality of his.
But get ready, your favorite president will see you soon.
And that's out there with Truth Social.
Now, Truth Social would be more of a comparison competitor to you guys as well as to Twitter, right?
Would you say Truth Social?
So here is the way that I think you got to look at it isn't so much of here's one pie that the alternative platforms have and they're challenging each other.
And then here's the big tech.
And the reason why is Facebook actually lost followers this last quarter.
First time ever that they've had a drop or they've lost people.
Twitter, as the Washington Post said, I think it's Megan McGardle had a great op-ed, said their business model is misery.
People just, the experience on Twitter of just being so negative and nasty, functionality is great.
Twitter's a whole old machine functionality-wise, but just it's so negative.
A lot of people are turned off from that.
One thing to keep in mind is when President Trump was deplatformed, and I know this from my own market research, about 20 to 25% of his followers, his voters domestically from 2020, quit social media.
Didn't necessarily delete their accounts, but they stopped using social media.
They were frustrated.
They were turned off.
They said this is all rigged by 20% of his voters.
Yes.
So he had just under 75 million people, about 20 to 25%, somewhere right in between there.
That would make sense why he's never on Twitter.
So here's what happens.
When President Trump announced in October of this last year that he was going to launch True Social, over the next 10 days, we had a 135% increase in signups versus the previous 10 days.
Because here's what's happening: people are coming off the sidelines and they're saying what's available, what's here.
We're here right now.
True Social is not.
When President Trump gets back in, I think it's going to get a lot more people saying, you know what?
Maybe now's the time.
This is the genesis.
This is the spark point to go and look at other platforms that are not called big tech.
So this isn't just a matter of us fighting over some small pie.
Twitter and Facebook are going to lose a lot of people to both True Social and to us, maybe even some other platforms when Trump gets in and starts getting people jazzed up.
And here's the other thing to keep in mind: Facebook and Twitter, it's not like they're taking their foot off the pedal.
Facebook in particular launched their quote-unquote global misinformation, global anti-misinformation effort, which means that anyone have an election in 2022, Philippines, Colombia, Brazil, France, they're going around and essentially picking winners and losers, doing their warning labels, doing the same nonsense that they did with U.S. elections.
So they're continuing to drive people away on a daily basis.
Can you pull up the article from Reuters with Trump about True Social?
Social Trump opens hundreds of testers that expect the launch.
Let me make it a little bit bigger.
I want to read this.
I haven't read this yet.
So Reuters, details about former President Donald Trump's new social media app are trickling out as about 500 beta testers have begun using an early version of True Social.
Two sources told Reuters the testing of True Social comes a year after Trump was banned from Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet, his new media and technology venture, Trump and Azure, has pledged to deliver an engaging and censorship-free experience on the app, which chief executive Devin Nunez has said will launch by the end of March.
Truth remains shrouded in secrecy and is regarded as skepticism by some in tech and media circles.
See, the challenge with this is, the challenge with this is he got a guy to go join him, which is one of the most powerful guys in tech.
What is Peter Thiel doing resigning from Facebook board to go join him?
A libertarian that wants to go join him.
He must know something others don't.
A guy like him is not going to go somewhere if he doesn't think it's going to be a winning formula.
And if he goes, he can probably make some phone calls to recruit the best of the best engineers because he's connected with everybody.
And they don't come as smart as that guy does.
That guy's a very, he doesn't want attention.
He's low-key.
He doesn't want to get out there and talk.
He just wants to deliver.
And so that guy teaming up with him.
And I know you're saying this is going to help our platform, but the only way I think it would is if Trump was actually active on Getter because if a user, one of the most annoying things about a user is the following.
Here's what users are getting annoyed with.
A user wakes up and is like, look, I used to just have to check Facebook.
Now I got to check Facebook.
Then I got to check Twitter.
Then I got to check YouTube.
Then I got to check Instagram.
Then I got to check LinkedIn.
Then I got to check TikTok.
Then I got to check.
Now I got to check GitHub.
Now I got to take now.
It's so many things for me to check off, right?
So don't you think this guy going out there and doing what he does, it could possibly, because this is what a lot of people are saying.
It could possibly hurt some of the other startup platforms out there like yours or maybe even a Rumble.
So, well, that's the thing.
Teal is a big backer of Rumble.
And so one of the things also you got to keep in mind, Teal leaving Facebook or Meta, whatever they're calling themselves now, it's not as though he's leaving Meta to go do something Trump.
He's leaving.
I think you have to go and bifurcate the two.
Here's the reason why.
Facebook's a dying company.
Even Zuckerberg said that they're going to lose 45% of their audience, 18 and under over the next two years.
It just, I mean, kids don't have Facebook.
They have Snapchat and TikTok.
That's where they're going to.
Well, Instagram, too.
Well, and Instagram.
And they said, so this is kind of where I'm getting to on the functionality.
Instagram Reels, this is Per Zuckerberg's most recent quarterly investor report.
Instagram Reels, the short video format, drives about 60% of their engagement.
Anyone coming to any of the broader Instagram, Facebook properties, it's for Instagram Reels.
So that's what we launched yesterday.
Because they're hyping those up, and they're basically working because that's kind of like TikTok.
Reels go viral.
Reels can take off.
So, and we actually just launched yesterday, again, the beta testing as we start to scale up Vision, which is our short video format.
So that's why I said initially we're competitors with Twitter and Facebook.
Now we're launching a product that ultimately will go head-to-head with TikTok, Instagram, Reels.
This is even before we get to say the get or pay as we go into the crypto payment platform we have.
The other thing we have that's really popular right now is live streaming.
And just to give you a sense of the scope, when President Trump had his rally in Arizona last month, a million people, technically 996,000, I'll round up to a million.
A million people watched President Trump's rally on Getter over three different channels.
You had Right Side, you had Newsmax, and you had Real America's Voice.
Those combined.
So a million out of our four and a half million were watching Trump's rally.
When he had his rally then in Conroe, Texas, two weeks later, over 700,000.
The live streaming dynamic that we've added in has been gangbusters, not just here, but globally as well.
Yeah, that's what, and that's my concern because that's all going to be on truth if he does that.
I think it's a long play because even truth, it's not an easy thing to just build something.
I would be surprised.
I have not seen from any of the beta testers that they have live streaming in the near future.
Eventually, they'll set that up.
But also, you got to keep in mind, at least I'm kind of tooting my own horn here.
We have the short vision or the vision, the short video clip format, which is, again, that's where people are doing the fun dances and all this stuff.
That's what all the younger folks are to.
That's now.
I haven't seen that within the beta testing for truth.
But then where we're going, ultimately, keep in mind, where truth wants to go, and this is from their public deck.
They want to be an entertainment and media creation company.
They want to create content.
If you take a look at the deck, that's where they want to go.
We're going is more into the financial services and payment platform and crypto aspect.
And so there are going to be areas of commonality.
But here's the other thing, too.
When you talk about people opening up multiple apps, multiple social media platforms, right now, people are looking and saying, yes, you have your Twitter, your Facebook, your others.
I'm not so sure that as these new platforms, ours, True Social, and others start to pop up, that people say, you know what?
I have these platforms I like.
I don't need to go to Twitter anymore.
I don't need to go to Facebook anymore.
I'll open up maybe Truth.
Maybe I'll open up Getter.
Maybe someone will open up Parlor, Rumble, whatever the case.
Those are the ones I'm doing.
I don't need to worry about the old big tech platforms who are censoring me politically.
Yeah, you know, I told this to Chris, if you remember when we were talking, I said, what's going to help today is you got to get something on your show, on your platform, that I can only get on your platform, right?
Like what you were talking about with the earlier conversation we're having with you being a pundit at a couple different places, and one of the places you were expressing what the terms and conditions was.
For example, why did I go to Spotify?
I've never downloaded Spotify until Rogan went on Spotify.
I've never downloaded Spotify ever in my life until Rogan went there.
Then I said, I'm going to go to Spotify, right?
You know, Bill Maher, to me right now, is one of the most valuable voices out there because believe it or not, I think he is a voice of reason, right?
You got the rest of the.
That's also a reflection of how off track the American Tony gets.
I love what he said.
You know, you always say it.
He says, I didn't change.
You change.
I've been the same for the last 30 years.
I'm still the same.
Pod smoking, liberal, whatever.
So I think he's very necessary.
I think our Russell Brand is very necessary.
John Stewart.
Jon Stewart.
Oh my gosh, if he came out of retirement, whoever was able to pick him up, that guy.
Your good friend Hassan Minaj.
Hassan Minaj is one of the highly requested guys to be on the podcast.
Guys want to have Hassan Minaj, funny guy, yeah.
So these guys are necessary.
I think, like, you know, you know, I think the battle is very similar to Hulu, Netflix, HBO, Showtime.
Like, when Sasha Baron Cohen had a show on Showtime, I'm like, Give me a damn break.
I got to go order a Showtime app, right?
When, you know, what's his name?
Shy LaBeouf, one of my favorite actors, his story that he made that movie about the story of his father, Honeyboy, something like that.
It was only on Amazon.
I had to go get Amazon's app on my TV to see it, right?
But House of Cards is why I joined Netflix first.
If there wasn't House of Cards, I would have never downloaded Netflix, right?
So it got me in through House of Cards.
So all I'm saying is, I think this guy's not a guy that's going to be a lightweight to go out there and do what he's doing, Trump, because he's preparing his campaign for 2024.
And you know more than I know.
He's running.
It's not like he ain't going to run.
No, I spent three hours with him yesterday.
So I went and visited him at Mar-a-Lago.
Oh, I'm going to go see him this afternoon.
So that's great.
I'll talk about his kidding, by the way.
He's not a guy that's a very, although he had his best podcast a couple of days ago, but he said people were blown away by it.
But the reason why I say that.
There's reasonable people out there.
I think you need someone to be a face that I can only get on Getter, and you got to spend some money to get somebody like that.
So I think, so to that point, I think yes, you're exactly right on that.
I may be wrong.
I'm just speculating.
No, you're right on a big part of it.
That's Pat pitching you to, hey, give us some money.
No, no, no, not at all.
I'm not asking about us.
I'm not at all.
Here's the thing.
When we bring on the content creators and we're able to, and again, we'll undercut the competition and come in.
They're allowing to keep that much more money, literally being 50% to 100% less than what anyone else has charged them to take the rip off of it.
That's going to be a driver for a lot of content creators.
We are pursuing some additional partnership deals to have some of that creative, but also to, to your point, just about people having to bounce around to different platforms.
With ours, if you have the microblogging, if you have the short video, essentially the TikTok, the Instagram Reels type, you have the live streaming, then you also have this crypto and the payment platform aspect.
That then makes it the all-in-one free speech platform.
So that's part of what we're doing is make it so once you're there, you're getting everything you'd possibly want.
But there will be, we're talking to some folks.
We'll have some crazy, crazy question for you.
When you spent time with Trump yesterday, the three hours at Mar-a-Lago, was there ever a conversation of bringing Getter and Truth together where they use any conversation like that or not at all?
No comment.
Okay, then that's the right story.
So here's the thing.
I think that there are areas of teaming up.
I think there are areas where more than one platform can exist in this space.
Certain things are just won't comment or talk about, but let's just say that I'm still, politically speaking, I'm still a big ally of the president and very friendly with them.
I think there's a way for both platforms and the American people to ultimately succeed and have an additional freedom in their voice.
That's probably about as far as I want to go.
Okay, got it.
Yeah.
Again, if a strategy like that were to take place, it's team up together to go up against an enemy rather than you competing against each other.
Because if their platform is a different angle, then Getter is a different angle.
It's like bringing Instagram and Facebook together.
That was a domination when that took place.
It's like bringing YouTube and Google together.
Holy shit.
So they went from being competitors to together, top website.
I know in America right now is TikTok.
Just blew past everybody because of what they're doing with their videos going viral.
But you got Google, YouTube, Facebook, those three guys competing for the top four.
So I think that would be more of a unified way to go to war for the next two, three years.
Because I think the alternative, I think it's going to work.
I think someone's going to pull this off and do it the right way.
By the way, you were with him.
How is his energy?
How is he feeling?
Is he planning on every time when I see him speak in different events at Mar-a-Lago or other places, he sounds like he is ready.
He's warming up for 2020.
You know, we spend a good chunk.
I think this probably might surprise people.
We spend a good chunk going through a lot of policy type things.
And he has a CPAC speech that's coming up, not this weekend, but next weekend.
So we talk through some of the themes, different things he's going to hit on.
We talk through endorsements, some people he's endorsing, not going to endorse.
He started rolling a bunch of those out last night and earlier this morning.
But I think the seriousness and the focus that he has right now and what's going on with Russia and Ukraine, but then also the even bigger existential threat, which is China.
Russia and Ukraine, I don't want to trivialize it and say that it's just noise, but compared to China and Taiwan, it is noise.
That's the real threat because China is going to take Taiwan and they'll do it in about 10 minutes.
And then everyone else in the South China Sea or anywhere else in the Indo-Pacific needs to be on high alert.
I think ultimately I'd be proven wrong as I saw there's some mortar shells fired this morning just in Ukraine.
I think Putin probably wants to make sure there's no NATO or EU expansion.
He shores up his domestic political base by kind of rattling the saber.
He does something where it makes it look like Biden is weak and he's strong.
And then he kind of just rides off in the sunset and then he rattles his saber somewhere else.
I think that's probably what happens with Ukraine and Russia.
But China's a whole different can of worms.
If you're a betting man and you go to Las Vegas and you have the odds to bet on him running versus not running, you're betting on what?
Oh, he'll run.
He'll run.
He'll run.
Yeah, he did not use those exact words.
But, I mean, he talked in pretty specific, as far as the desire, the motivation.
And part of the thing is like, look, he's like, if you have someone who's weak in the White House, you're going to get tested by these foreign leaders.
They're just going to steamroll you.
And it's a, I think a lot of times people see kind of the, you know, kind of the affable and some of the, you know, sometimes hyperbolic aspect of the president.
And they don't necessarily see sometimes the concern level.
He's really concerned about the direction of the country with everything happening with immigration and inflation and all these different issues going on.
He's concerned that if someone like him doesn't get back in there, what the country is going to look like after not just the next three years, but four years after that.
So then the question then for you becomes, this is a question I've been trying to get an answer from somebody.
We had the press secretary of DeSantis here, Christina Pusha, right?
And she was a great, she was great at playing dodgeball.
I mean, like, she would have been a great dodgeball player.
She was dodging everything.
Every time I was asking, it's like this.
It was very impressive.
But this is a state where they love their governor.
And in some communities, they love their former president in this state, right?
So they're conflicted in the state of Florida.
A lot of people on the center and on the right would like to see DeSantis get in the ring and compete for the number one spot, which is to be the president.
There's even some people on the left that would be more happier with a DeSantis than they would be with a Trump as a president, right?
But right now, if you go out there and you look at who's going to be the candidate for the right, percentage-wise, Trump's at the top, he's got a good lead on DeSantis, right?
And then the question becomes: well, if DeSantis doesn't run right now, politics, people got a short memory, because Newsom may be their candidate in 2023, 2024, and people forget about what happened in California.
So that's my I think it's Trump versus Newsom in 2024, by the way.
Okay, got it.
So you don't think DeSantis is going to run this year in 2023, 2024?
I think Governor DeSantis wants to run.
I think that DeSantis is a powerhouse.
I think that he would, if the election were tomorrow and Trump was not in the race, DeSantis would be the next president.
Of course, if he's not.
Right.
The one thing that I would say, I don't know about president.
I think he would have a very high chance of being a president, but I think he would take the Republican side.
He'd be the nominee.
He would be the nominee.
I've seen polling that says that, again, if President Trump did not run and the election were tomorrow, so it's not based on going through the campaign trail and the gauntlet.
And by the way, it's a long road to the coronation.
So the roadside's littered with candidates who are the frontrunner, and then they get that one weird question, or they get tripped up, or people see some weird awkwardness about them or something like that, and they stumble.
Ron would win the GOP primary, and then he would beat whoever the Democrat nominee is.
It's just that Biden's really screwed things up for the political left right now.
I do think that President Trump runs.
I think maybe to your point, again, this is not something, I'm not saying this from anything he told me yesterday because we didn't go into anything specific.
But look, you take a Trump-DeSantis ticket, something like that would be pretty damn powerful, in my opinion.
And maybe a team up there might be a smart thing that helps the GOP take it overall.
I don't know if that happens.
I don't know if that happens.
These are two alphas.
I just have a hard time seeing DeSantis doing that.
But at the same time, if they go at each other, what does it look like if they both run?
I've seen all the quotes, all the things Trump has said.
I would beat him too.
The booster shot.
Hey, people asked me if I took the booster.
I did.
Some people are afraid to see.
I followed all the stories, everything that's been happening.
But what happens if both of them run?
Is that a good thing?
I'd prefer to avoid it.
I still think Trump wins.
I don't even think that it's ultimately close.
But it would, I think that, again, Ron's a powerhouse.
Trump's a bigger powerhouse.
What about his relationship with Pence these days?
Pence may be considering running as well.
They haven't exactly minced words as of late.
Where does things stand with Pence?
Yeah, I don't think they're hanging out on the weekends anymore.
So I think that that ship has probably sailed.
Any chance that if Trump runs again, that Pence would be his VP nomination at all?
I can't see it.
Zero.
I think it's zero.
I don't think it's possible.
I don't think it's possible for that to happen.
And Pence would run, though, no, don't you think?
Like, looking on stage, you see a Trump, you see a Pence, you see a Nikki Haley, you see a DeSantis.
What does that look like there?
Here's the reality.
If you look at the polling, DeSantis is already clearly past Pence.
Even if President Trump did not run for some reason, if President Trump did not run, I do think Pence definitely then runs.
And if I were advising him, I'd say not to, because I think DeSantis would clean his clock.
DeSantis would clean his clock.
Pence's, yes.
I don't disagree.
Do you see Trump and Pence debating on stage?
I mean, certainly if there was a primary field and they had primary debates, I think actually Trump would probably love that.
It would be, it'd be, you know, it'd be made for TV excitement.
I don't think Pence would do it.
I don't think Pence is going to run because the OK, so what's Pence's message going to be?
Let's actually go there.
First debate there on stage.
I was with Trump 99.9% of the time.
Until January 6th insurrection.
So, okay, so who does he get?
He gets the Lincoln Project folks.
He gets the Bush camp.
He gets McConnell.
Who does he get?
Karl Rove.
He gets Karl Rove.
He gets those guys.
That's who he's going to get.
Okay.
What happened the moment Biden won?
What did they do to Lincoln Project?
Nothing.
They realized you're left out there to so Lincoln Project is also sitting there.
They're probably behind closed doors hoping for a DeSantis, hoping for somebody else because those guys are not going to support Trump.
But Pence's argument is going to be, it's only going to last for a week or two before he's done.
I don't think that's going to last.
But don't forget that Pence was a nobody before Trump made him.
Well, I will tell you this.
I get what you're saying.
I get what.
No, he has a point to say when he, to me, how I interpret that is he wasn't mainstream.
That's a better way of saying it.
Not that he was a nobody.
I will tell you, a lot of people voted for Trump because they were glad Pence was the VP.
So you can't say he was a nobody.
Especially if you're not going to be able to do that.
So if you think about, if you think about percentage-wise, out of all the votes he got when he beat Hillary, okay, what percentage you think was Pence?
So I can tell you, just put a little numbers to that.
In the final debate that President Trump had toward the end of it, when he answered the question about Supreme Court picks.
Is this in 16?
Yes, in 16.
Sorry.
In 2016, our numbers went from mid-high 80s with Republicans to low-mid-90s with Republicans after that answer because people heard the, okay, he's pro-life, that he wants conservative Supreme Court judges, support the Second Amendment.
But that was much more of the Pence voter that kind of took it from the mid-high 80s to the low, mid-90s.
So you're exactly right.
There was definitely a community of folks that pushed him over 77,000 votes over six states.
Yeah, you can say Pence was a huge part of Trump.
I want to read the story, political insider story.
McConnell Bush, GOP establishment working to fold Trump-endors candidates.
Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell is working behind the scenes to protect and strengthen GOP establishment figures, sometimes in direct opposition to former President Trump.
And McConnell isn't alone either.
At his side, at least one instance is former President George W. Bush.
One such case in Arizona Senate race.
Trump has been highly critical of Governor Doug Docey over the state's performance in 2020 election while Doocy has demurred on running for Senate in 2022.
He's gotten encouragement from the likes of McConnell and George Bush.
McConnell has stated that he believes that Trump has done damage to the GOP and told allies that he will not be back unelectable goofballs in the primaries.
What do you have to say about that?
Are you surprised?
No, not surprised at all.
I mean, the swamp hates President Trump, and they hate anyone who's not going to conform, who's not going to go and fall in line.
I do think that we need to make sure that we're vetting candidates and make sure that we have solid ones that are going to be there.
And I think the president has, I think President Trump has a smarter or more robust effort built around him for this time for what candidates he's backing.
And look, there'll be some places where you see the swamp type folks plus Trump being on the same page on some of these endorsements.
There'll be a places where they're on different.
So say Trump runs 2023, okay?
And by the way, right now, if you bet $100 in Vegas on the bet of Trump running, the return is only $1.
Yeah, I was going to say that.
Because everybody knows as well.
But say he runs.
Who do you see?
Because what I'm interested in is give me a list of people that are his enemies that we know of, and then give the potential unexpected enemies that will fight against him not being president.
So let's talk about the people that we know are enemies.
Is mainstream going to support him?
Well, and mainstream, that's maybe a wrong word that I used.
I'd say the Washington, the swamp creatures.
They're not going to support him.
They're not going to support him.
I do think that the overall Republican base is pretty solidly with Trump.
So go to the swamp.
Give me names on the right that you would consider swamp.
McConnell's one.
Yeah.
McClos, would you put a swamp?
I mean, you go into it.
You listed a number earlier, whether it be McConnell, whether it be Rove.
When Oruv might technically live in Texas, but he's viewed as being kind of the establishment, the George W. Bush types that are there.
I would say anyone who voted in the Liz Cheney types, even though she's going to be out of office here, there's zero chance that she wins her race in Wyoming.
But those are the types.
Got it.
So number one, Chamber of Commerce.
The Chamber of Commerce, the swamp, it's not going to support him on the right.
Who else will be those that wouldn't support him that would fight him tooth and nails to make sure he doesn't get elected?
Well, and so this is where it starts to get a little bit more stilted.
I think it's tough to say that there's the law enforcement and that the legal system has not become politicized against President Trump.
When you look at, say, the state of New York, you look at Tish James, you look at some of these activists, attorneys general.
I think it's become very politicized.
I think the fact that Tish James ran in 2018 saying that she was going to lock up President Trump.
This is the Attorney General of the state of New York campaigning saying, I'm going to win, and then we're going to lock up Donald Trump.
What kind of impartial law enforcement activist is this?
I mean, this thing is so politicized that I think it's really just an egregious abuse of our judicial system.
So you can say, but then I'd also say, and this kind of goes to, I know, another thing we're going to talk about.
You look what they did with Trump with all the spying and the data collection and things like that from 2016 and even beyond.
I don't put it above even Biden's White House or Biden's DOJ to go and pull some of the same shenanigans again.
Okay, so so far we got the swamp, a part of the mainstream media.
You got some of the government police or the Lincoln Project crew, Steve Schmidt, all those guys.
Then the last one you just talked about here with what's going to happen, potentially Joe Biden, similar thing to what happened with the Durham investigation, Hitler pulled off ObamaGate to maybe Biden doing that.
Who else do you think will be?
Do you think the Facebooks of the world, you think those guys are going to be overly playing the control game to make sure, not necessarily Trump, they've already done that, but other people that are coming up, a Candace Owens that all of a sudden does a live and gets 22 million views.
Well, let's silence her.
You think there's going to be a lot more stories like that happen in the next couple of years?
Absolutely.
And here's one of the kind of the buried leads or untold stories.
The progressive left really took it out on Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg after Trump won in 2016.
And they said, it's because of you.
You guys came up with those platforms.
You allowed Trump to evade the media, go directly to people.
It's on you.
I think that's a big part of the reason why you saw Zuckerberg then go and fund some of the election efforts with the drop boxes and the things of that nature, kind of the good, as he would, I'm sure, probably describe a good government and pro-voting, but he basically was funding, he knew what he was funding.
But that's why you saw so much of the backlash.
They changed the rules of the game in 2020.
They said, okay, Trump, you're not going to have the unfettered access.
We're going to suspend you where necessary.
We'll put up the warning labels.
And now post-election, they ultimately banned him from their accounts.
So I think that will ratchet up even higher.
And that's part of the thing.
You look at, again, not where the ball is right now, but where it's going, is we go into these elections, not just the 2022 midterms or even 2024.
Facebook and Twitter have already made that business decision that they want some people as customers and others they don't want as customers, not just in the U.S., but around the world.
Both of those platforms are going to lose tremendous amounts of people as they come in and exercise additional acts of political discrimination.
Well, we saw that when they lost $240 billion in a day, Facebook, that's a lot of money to lose in a day, $240 in a single day.
So who will be the supporters?
Go on the flip side now.
Who will be the supporters and who will be the surprising supporters?
So one, and again, you probably already aware of this one.
I think Latinos and Hispanic Americans will be big drivers for Trump.
And part of the reason is this.
Democrats made a just a fundamental miscalculation when they backed the BLM movement the way they did in 2020, just with the lawlessness and the acts of looting and everything that we saw come out of those riots and protests.
I think that you have a lot of white Democrats in Washington who don't understand the Hispanic and Latino American communities at all and think it's purely just about economics.
You travel to Central and South America and people have eight nine-foot walls around their house or eight, nine-foot gates and walls and fences, things of that nature.
It's because it's not safe.
I mean, go to Columbia and even good neighborhoods, you have the uniformed officers with machine guns.
It's because of the challenges they've had.
It's not just about economics.
It's also about security.
People want to live in a place where their kids can walk to school without being potentially abducted or killed or shot or something of that nature.
And by Democrats embracing the BLM movement, I think they did a generation worth of damage to their relationship with the Latino and Hispanic American communities.
And you saw that not just in the Rio Grande, but I think Latino Americans would be the surprising driver for Trump.
And I also think, too, look, Trump got a lot of people forget this.
Trump did record setting well for Latino Americans, black Americans, Asian Americans, best ever for Republicans since 1972.
And I think that movement by African Americans away from the Democratic Party, whether they be going to independence or going to Republican, I think that's continuing because, quite frankly, I don't think Democrats have made good on their promises to black Americans at all.
Jason, you have Trump's ear, do you not?
I mean, you met with him yesterday, right?
How open is he to your feedback?
Good question.
Sometimes he likes it.
He has no problem telling me if he thinks that it sucks, which is always fun.
He's like, hey, I like that idea.
Or actually, that's a terrible idea.
Let me tell you why.
When you work with President Trump, your job isn't to your job is not to go and try to tell him what to say or necessarily.
You might have ideas, different things, but your job is to figure out how to amplify what he's thinking, what direction he's going.
Yeah, and there'll be things, for example, when we talked about his speech coming up at CPAC, I had a couple specific ideas on themes I think he ought to go and hit on.
But he is probably more than anyone I've ever worked with.
I mean, he's his own guy.
He's going to, it's fun.
You know, it's great when he listens to you.
And sometimes he has, I'll give you one just quick example.
2016, he was going to re-roll out his economic plan.
And I went and presented it to him.
I was like, sir, I'm just going to make fun of myself here.
I'm like, sir, here's this detailed plan that, you know, the entire team got together and worked out this rollout plan of hers.
And he just kind of looks at me and he goes, Jace, how long did you spend working on that?
And I was like, uh-oh.
I'm like, oh, sir, just, you know, the team whipped together, you know, a couple hours.
And he's like, no, you spent, did you guys spend days working on this?
And he shakes his head and he goes, let me tell you this.
I'm sure this stuff is all fine.
This is so Washington.
Here's how we're going to do it.
I'm going to call out Matt Lauer on the Today Show.
He's going to take me live.
I'm going to deliver it to four or five million people live.
It's going to get everyone talking the entire day.
Ted Cruz won't even, or Hillary Clinton won't even be out of bed yet by the time I roll out my economic policy.
We're going to get all this buzz going and we can go do some of your other stuff.
But, you know, come and talk to me on this kind of thing.
So he's always thinking through kind of the marketing and the presentation.
And I kind of looked and I was like, he's kind of right.
You know, and the piece of paper I had wasn't even worth it.
So he'll tell you if he doesn't agree with you.
And if you had a magic wand and you can reverse history and change one thing that you think he did wrong, is there anything that comes to mind?
Yeah, I think in 2020, and I'll take some of the blame on this, we should have had our own social media platform ready to go.
And I will be the first person to tell you that I did not take as serious the censorship and the political discrimination that we saw going.
And I should have realized it from early 2020.
It wasn't purely about electoral politics.
Remember, people were being sentenced to digital jail because they said the virus came from a Laban Wuhan.
Well, you know, spoiler alert, it did come from a Laban Wuhan.
Know if it was man-made or if it was traipsed out by a sloppy worker, but it came from a lab in Wuhan, and people are being sentenced to digital jail.
If you criticize Fauci in the wrong way, you're getting sentenced to digital jail.
Even before we got to the Hunter Biden laptop and Trump's ultimate deplatforming, we should have realized that we needed to have additional platform or platforms out there.
That would have obviously needed to start in 2018, 2019 to go and build that up.
I look back, and that's the one thing that I say that we all dropped the ball on.
We should have had that up and going.
What are your thoughts on the 6th?
What are your thoughts on the 6th?
Like how the McConnell and the left sells it, and then how many on the MAGA camp and Trump's camp sell January 6th.
Yeah, I mean, look, I'll tell you what I think of it, just unvarnished.
I think it was a terrible day for American history.
I think the images that we saw on that day are terrible, and we can never have that happen again.
I do not hold President Trump responsible for anything that happened on that day.
Anyone who's a Trump supporter, after we had spent how many different speeches and ads and everything, saying we support law enforcement, we support law and order.
How anyone could go and do that?
That's where I've always had questions about just how really some of these people were actually Trump supporters, where they were rabble rousers, or if they're some people who just had a screw loose.
I do think that it's unfortunate what the unfortunate is too light of a term.
I think it's pretty disgusting what the DOJ has done on people who, say, for example, didn't enter the Capitol.
I think if you're, again, you can be outside the Capitol.
There's no law against that.
If you want to go out there and say, go and send these back to the states to have further debate on, that's fine.
No one should have any of their civil liberties infringed upon or have their life ruined simply because they're outside the Capitol.
If you assaulted any police officers, if you destroyed any property, then I think you need to be fully held accountable for everything that you did.
If you're outside peacefully protesting, so what?
People protest outside the Capitol all the time.
But again, the images of that day are things that for a lot of people is going to define an entire generation political.
So on, I don't know what day it was.
This was the one-year anniversary this year when Ted Cruz said the foul on.
Of all the things that January 6th was, it was definitely not a violent terrorist attack.
He said that the next day, but later on that day.
But earlier that day, he said it was an insurrection.
It was a terrorist attack.
Then Tucker Carlson came.
I'm sure he saw that.
And he held his foot to the fire and said, hey, what is this?
And he said, no, no, that's not what I meant.
He said, look, you're a man of words.
You know words.
You're a guy that knows words.
You said it.
Did you mean it?
How could you say something like that?
You realize the repercussions of this.
And it was a very uncomfortable day for Ted Cruz.
Do you think that was, by the way, your mic is on.
Do you think that was a situation where Ted was maybe that morning he's like, this is an opportunity where I can go and I have to have a different position than Trump if I'm going to run myself?
Do you think that was one of those moments or do you think he just had a bad day and he said the wrong thing?
So I worked for Ted in the primary in 2016 before I went to Trump.
And just doing the quick rewind, if Trump had run in 2012, I was going to be his campaign manager.
And I just assumed he was never going to run.
I thought he got his apprentice deal renegotiated.
He was going to stick that.
So signed up and partnered up with Ted.
Ted doesn't make mistakes speaking.
I can't speak to what his thought process was.
I've never seen him actually misspeak.
So I don't know what all he was thinking or went into it.
I am glad that he went and cleaned it up.
I still think Ted's a pretty important voice, but I would disagree as far as the insurrection talk or saying that this is some kind of terrorist thing.
I would disagree with that.
Yeah, I'd be curious because I think Trump's got a memory and he will remember comments like that being made.
You think?
No, I think that's either going to work in his favor or it's not going to work in his favor.
Meaning, Ted, I'm not talking about Trump because you think Romney's going to play any kind of a role in the next two, three years or he's done.
No, he's done dumb.
He is so dumb.
I mean, I don't even know how he'd get re-elected.
He's young compared to a Biden and a Trump.
He is.
I thought Romney was.
How old is Romney?
He's in his 70s.
Right?
I don't think it's that big of a difference.
I think there's a lot of people.
I thought he was late 60s.
He's also same age, 74.
Got it.
Well, he looks good for Russia.
Taylor just looks great.
I'm not going to lie.
That's Romney.
That's what some of that sweet bane cash will do.
I want to have a crowd jump.
What do you think happens with the GOP establishment, the Romneys of the world, the Cheneys, the McConnells, and the MAGA crowd?
What's that relationship look like moving forward?
Yeah, there's always going to be an inherent conflict.
And I don't even think it's necessarily unique just to Republicans.
I think it might take a different form, but you see, even with the Democrats and the progressives and the people who want to change Washington from the right or the left, and then people who say, actually, we're Washington.
We're the ones, you know, this is the hunger games.
This is capital city.
We're the ones who make the decision.
The rest of you guys just go and live with it.
There's always going to be inherently some of that.
And look, it is, I will tell you, this whole changing Washington thing is really damn tough.
It's like going to the casino and saying, I'm going to beat the House.
It's like these people who say, I'm going to beat the DOJ in some kind of legal thing.
They have unlimited money, unlimited resources, and they're just going to keep pounding away.
There's always going to be some of that conflict.
But as far as the Republican base overall nationally, it's solidly with Trump.
I mean, you look at the way that he single-handedly changed the trade debate.
You look at the way that he's single-handedly changed so many of these, the international relations, the America-first dynamic.
I mean, you know, it was only a decade ago that someone coughs somewhere and we're sending U.S. troops five minutes later.
Now we're taking much more of a, wait a minute, do we need to go and stick our nose into all these efforts?
That's all because of Trump.
And just the fact that Biden has left so many of Trump's China policies in place, I think just tells you how much Trump has moved, not just even the Republican base, but the country as a whole into realizing the existential threat to China for the long term.
That in itself, you know, if you were the Biden camp, how would you sell that?
You're a campaign manager for Biden.
How would you sell the fact that you've kept many of Trump's China policies?
Well, he ran on because you just claim him as your own.
Well, yeah, I don't know about that.
I think you're right.
I mean, that's what an amateur campaign manager is going to say, right?
That's what an amateur campaign manager is going to say.
But this is an opportunity to come out and win the opposite side and the guys in the middle to say, listen, at least this guy's being given some kind of credit on what happened there.
But you have to stand to your point and say, well, this is our ideas.
Well, we got rid of every single idea that he had.
The only thing Biden can do is say, actually, Trump wasn't tough enough.
We went even further.
The country is so moved in the other direction with regard to China.
I think we are moving towards a true decoupling.
It's never going to be a complete decoupling, but you see the way that it's going.
I mean, the decoupling of these economies is happening.
So let's talk about the Durham investigation that just came out, the Durham Report.
This is a Daily Mail article, the timeline of Durham's investigation leading up to the bombshell, Hillary Clinton.
If you can pull up that article so folks can see it as I'm going through it.
May 17th, 2017.
Then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rossen Rosenstein appoints Robert Mueller as special counsel.
This is May 17, 2017.
Among other things, Mueller is directed to investigate any links and or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with Trump presidential campaign.
Then you go to January 15.
Bill Barr first alluded to what would become the Durham investigation in a Senate confirmation hearing.
He promised then Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham he would examine the FBI's counterintelligence investigation against Trump.
March 22nd, 2019, Mueller closed his special investigation to Russia meddling in 2016 election and submitted his final report to Barr.
March 25th, three days later, 2019, Barr met with then Connecticut Attorney General John Durham.
Justice Department records show the two had 18 more meetings and three calls that year.
December 2019, Durham was revealed to be examining the role of Obama-era CIA Director John Brennan in how the intelligence community assessed Russia's 2016 election interference.
September 17, 2021.
This is five months ago.
Cybersecurity 2021.
Cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussman pleaded not guilty in federal court.
He was indicted for lying to the FBI in a 2016 meeting where he shared information related to ties between the Trump organization and Russia Aflobank.
He said he wasn't working for a client but was hired by Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign.
Two months later, November 2021, Durham charged Russia-born analyst Igor Danchenko with lying to the FBI and fabricating sources for the steel dossier.
He pleaded not guilty to five counts of making false statements to a federal agent.
Last week, February 11, 2022, Durham filings revealed Clinton paid to have Trump Tower and White House servers heckled to fabricate ties between Trump and Russia.
And then Trump-era director National Intelligence John Radcliffe reveals Durham thinks there is enough evidence to indict several more people.
He also said Obama and Biden were briefed on the Clinton revelations in 2016.
Kai, what are your thoughts about what's been happening with this year with the Durham report?
I wish it happened a year ago or two years ago or several years ago.
Why didn't it, though?
I think, again, this is just my speculation on this.
I think that Barr knew that there were egregious abuses, but he didn't want to do anything that would become a 2020 campaign issue.
And so he wanted to get to the bottom of this, but he was so concerned about himself looking politicized that he didn't want to do it.
Here's the problem.
He literally wasted, I shouldn't say wasted because he got some great things done.
But that first two years of the Trump administration, how many tens of millions of dollars, how many CNN interviews, how many MSNBC broadcasts and shows devoted purely to all the Mueller in Russia, Russia, Russia nonsense.
How much money and time and effort was wasted into all of this?
I mean, even this Mueller report and what we know what started it, ultimately, you have this steel dossier, which helped to swirl up suspicion, but disproven.
You have all these alpha bank allegations that were used to swirl up suspicion.
Now it's coming back.
Sussman's going to have a nice custom-fitted orange suit at a certain point here, and that's good.
He's probably not going to like his time in a cell.
But here's the thing that I think everybody is missing from this.
Who gave these guys their orders?
Now, we saw in the closing days of 2016, we saw Jake Sullivan, who, by the way, the current national security advisor for Biden in the White House, wrote a memo about these alleged Trump ties that Hillary then tweeted out and was talking about.
We saw Hillary bring it up just before Halloween in 2016 with the whole Trump-Russia connections or the alleged connections.
So clearly there's communication in the Clinton camp.
Sussman was billing the Clinton campaign for his work.
Why is nobody saying who gave him his orders, who signed off on the approvals?
What was the chain of custody and chain of command for reporting that information back up?
I think the rotting fish here goes up.
I don't know if it's to the actual head, but I think it goes higher up.
There's no way this is all just a Sussman Obama.
Is that kind of where you're going?
Are you going Hillary?
You're going Biden, you're going to Obama?
I don't know.
But I know that this is not Michael Sussman did not drive this entire thing by himself.
Yeah, this is Jake Sullivan.
I'm trying to get the tweet itself.
Oh, but that's, I mean, this Jake Sullivan is the national security advisor in Biden's White House today.
Here's Crooked on October 31st on Halloween, 2016, going to this statement, this memo that Jake Sullivan put together and talking about the, I mean, where did this magically, it's not like you just.
Can we read it?
Because everybody's seen this picture.
Let's just read it.
Make it a little bit.
It's a statement from Jake Sullivan on New Year report exposing Trump's secret line of communication to Russia in response to a new report from state showing that the Trump organization has a secret service to Trump Tower that has been covertly communicating with Russia.
Hillary for American senior policy advisor Jake Sullivan released the following statement on Monday.
This could be the most direct link between Donald Trump and Moscow.
Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server link, the Trump organization, to a Russian-based bank.
This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump's ties to Russia.
It certainly seems the Trump organization felt it had something to hide, given that it apparently took steps to conceal the link between it was discovered by journalists.
This type of communication may help explain Trump's bizarre adoration for Vladimir Putin and endorsed of so many pro-Kremlin positions throughout his campaign.
It raises even more troubling question in light of Russia's masterminding of heckling, hacking efforts that are clearly intended to curt Hillary Clinton's campaign.
I can't read that part there.
Anyway, so Hillary Clinton.
The next line says, we can only assume that federal authorities will now explore this direct connection between Trump and Russia.
Again, Jake Sullivan, now the national security advisor.
He was the policy director for Hillary's campaign in 2016.
National Security Advisor.
What's going to happen to him?
Well, that's why Jim Jordan's been going after him saying, number one, we got it.
And Josh Hawley has also lit him up saying, this guy, we've got to make sure he doesn't have any connection with any DOJ investigations or anything that's going on because concern about that he might go and try to scuttle things or try to cover it.
I think Sullivan needs to be hauled up in front of Congress.
I think law enforcement needs to talk to him.
I want to know about every communication that Sussman and Sullivan have had.
And that's where I don't get maybe this is what Durham's referring to, and he's just being overly coy at this point.
But they need to be asking Sussman what exact communications was he having with Sullivan or anyone else on the Crooked's campaign.
So to be fair, Hillary responded yesterday when she was walking out of a car.
Somebody said, so what, do you have any comments on Durham?
And she didn't say anything right.
But this is what she tweeted.
And I actually want to read the article from Vanity Fair.
So Hillary Clinton, yesterday, Trump and Fox are desperately spinning up a fake scandal to distract from his real one.
So it's a day that ends in why.
The more his misdeeds are exposed, the more they lie.
For those interested in reality, here's a good debunking of the latest response.
Okay, go up a little bit before you click on that.
Go up a little bit.
I want to see how many likes it got.
Okay.
For a tweet like that, okay?
How many followers does Hillary have?
Go click on her profile just to see how 31 million followers.
Okay.
Go up a little bit to show the tweet.
Go up a little bit to show that tweet that she had up.
Okay, maybe then just, okay, there you go.
For somebody to have 30 million followers, for only 30,000 people to like your post, the biggest name that really said anything positive to defend her was Keith Oberman, which Keith Oberman hasn't had credibility for a long time.
But click on Vanity Fair.
Click on Vanity Fair.
Let's read the article.
Let's read this article.
It's not a long article, by the way.
Okay, so let's see who wrote it.
Go find out who wrote it.
Who wrote it?
What's her name?
Bess Levin.
Do we know who Bess Levin is?
No, but I like that Hillary had to revert to Vanity Fair to Vanity Fair leans.
Let's read the article.
Let me read the article, go a little lower.
I mean, the headline.
What was the headline?
Yeah, in less breaking news.
Oh, the headline.
You'll never believe it, but Hillary did not, in fact, spy on Trump's White House.
Okay, cool.
Let's read it.
Go lower.
Let's read it.
All right, so make it a little bit bigger so I can see it from here.
Imagine, if you will, that a special counsel appointed by the federal government declared in a court filing that he had evidence that a major political figure, let's call her Hillary Clinton, had paid spies to infiltrate the White House and run surveillance on Donald Trump in order to frame him as a foreign asset.
The whole thing would be a big flipping deal, one for which there would be major, major consequences and far-reaching fallout.
The country, nay, the world would be gripped by the story and for reason, good reason, a former candidate for office spying on the president in the White House, and that would be crazy.
And you're right, it would be crazy if something like that actually had happened, which it didn't, though, unfortunately, for some reason, logic and the concept of the true Donald Trump Fox News and various other deranged conservatives cannot be convinced of that.
Yes, as you've probably heard, on Saturday, the former president released a statement claiming that Special Durham, he meant to say John Durham, but was apparently too angry to keep his Johns and his Roberts straight, but has uncovered indisputable evidence that my campaign as presidency were spied on by operatives paid a Hillary Clinton campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia.
Okay, so far we don't have any details, just opinion.
A scandal for greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate for which Trump suggested those involved should be executed, but would settle for criminal prosecution.
The problem, neither Robert Durham nor John Durham, nor anyone else for that matter has actually provided evidence for such crime, let alone even suggested it.
All right, so let's see what this says.
When John Durham, the Trump-era special counsel investigating the inquiry into Russia 26 election interference filed a pre-trial motion on Friday night, he slipped in a few extra sentences that set off a fur among right-wing outlets about perpetrated spying on the entire narrative appeared mostly wrong.
Okay, there's no explanation here.
The latest example began with the notion that Mr. Durham is false and Michael A. Sussman, cybersecurity lawyer with links to Democratic Party.
The prosecutor has accused Mr. Sussman of lying during a September 22nd meeting with the FBI official about Donald Trump's possible links with Russia.
The filings was ostensibly about potential conflicts of interest, but it also recounted a meeting at which Mr. Sussman had presented other suspicions to the government.
Okay, so go down.
Is there any more details than just to say it's not right?
According to the filing, sussmens had gotten information from technology executive Rodney Jaffe, whose company, Newstar, had performed server-related work to the White House.
In Durham's estimation, Jaffe and his colleagues had exploited this arrangement by mining for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump Fox News, took those lines from Durham's filing and ran with it, claiming Durham had said that found the Clinton campaign had paid technology company infiltrate White House server.
The lack of similarly baseless claims from the mainstream media led Trump to declare the press refuses to even mention the major crime that took place.
This is itself a scandal, the fact that the story is so big, so powerful.
Okay, I got it.
So she's just saying, in other words, I don't think anything was there.
I don't see a detailed breakdown of that.
Here's the thing.
Hillary didn't say anything.
Hillary just said that Vanity Fair went and disputed it, and this is another day ending in why.
It's not a denial from Hillary Clinton.
How do you read that?
Well, I guess here's the question.
And to your point, you said, hey, I wish this happened two years ago.
What I'm asking is, if Hillary was running again in 2024, and obviously we're speculating Trump's money, whatever.
It'd be alienation.
I don't think she's going anywhere, right?
But then this would be a major story, right?
Think of Benghazi, think of the email, think of the servers, these are things they could use against her.
But if she's not running and, you know, we're talking about this Robert Durham, John Durham report, is this a story that just kind of dies on the vine?
Where's it going?
Because there's no one to rail against.
Hillary Hillary, it's like, dude, we're in 2024.
You're talking about 2016.
Where's the relevancy here?
If she was still running, I could understand that.
Why is that important?
It's relevancy because a lot of this spying happened after the 2016 election.
When you talk about Trump's White House, obviously that only happens after January 20th, 2017, when he's inaugurated and he takes in.
So it goes even beyond the 2016 campaign, then into ostensibly the 2020 campaign.
And the concern is with so much going on as far as hacking or government surveillance or monitoring.
I want to know also how far did that go?
Did it just magically stop in, say, January, February of 2017?
Did it go further?
We saw this computer firm also worked for the Biden campaign.
We want to make sure this never happens again from anybody, that there's this, is now we're getting the digital snooping and spying.
I even have concerns even from the government side.
Well, I guess my question is this.
I think it's a two-part question.
A, is this important to figure out?
Yes, this is clearly important.
66% of Democrats don't know about this.
Yes, let's find out what happened here.
Sure.
Unbiased, uncontrolled.
Like, let's figure out.
But B, what relevancy does it have for future elections?
Meaning, is this help the Trump campaign get elected again in 2024?
Does this hurt?
Like, that's what I'm solving.
Because then the same question can be asked in a following way.
A, do we have to know, go back to 2016 when everybody was saying Russia, Russia, Russia.
You know, do we have to find out if Trump was linked to Russia?
Okay.
And then B, but who cares if it did?
You know, what are we going to get out of it if we did find out?
It's the same question.
But everybody in the media wanted to know it.
I mean, there's clips.
If you want to do greatest hits, Don Lemon saying, all they talk about is a Durham investigation, Durham investigation, Durham investigation.
It's out now.
Rachel Maddow's like, everybody's relying on the Durham investigation.
There's nothing.
It's just a conspiracy theory.
Okay.
Morning Joe.
They keep talking about the Durham investigation, but there's nothing.
They addressed this specifically head on on Morning Joe today.
I don't know if you heard what they said.
They had an expert come on and really sort of diffuse the argument.
It's something you should watch.
Right.
And look, what I'm saying is this.
Diffuse the argument, meaning it's not a big deal.
Exactly.
And this was not on the news two days ago when I kind of was like, hey, what the hell is going on here?
It's just, there's so much out there, and there's only so much bandwidth someone can take.
I'm saying from the mind of an individual voter.
How many people actually voted a certain way because of Benghazi, as an example?
Maybe the emails, especially when Comey came out and kind of said it was a sloppy job.
So I tell you there are a couple of things here because it's not even just about, say, the pure partisan aspect, the Democrats.
It's also about the media.
So why is Morning Joe out there doing it?
Well, number one, they just, their unbridled Trump hatred, except when Joe and Mika were visiting us a couple days before the campaign in 2016, and we're all buddies then, but now we're not, but that's a whole nother conversation.
But the fact that they have to go out there and essentially they hate Trump, so they want to go and say this isn't true.
They want to defend themselves, knowing that they spent hundreds, if not thousands of hours of doing broadcasts saying Russia, Russia, Russia, we're going to get this guy.
And when you go into some of the, especially the hyperbole that we saw, I mean, look, I was a CNN commentator in 2017 and 2018.
How many Russia segments did I waste my life doing on CNN?
And of course, we find out that it was all Too many of these six-on-one panels to name.
So here's the thing.
Going forward, we got to make sure that the media is held accountable, that they don't get completely snookered and taken down these rabbit holes on future things because, as we saw from Russia, Russia, Russia, i.e. Moeller, impeachment one, impeachment two.
If Trump runs again in 2024, which I think he does, they're going to have the next Russia, Russia, Russia.
They're going to have some next thing that they come up with.
Here is our chance to finally beat the orange man.
We're going to come up with some new crackpot thing that the media all goes running like lemmings.
They don't go and actually do their own work.
They just get out there and try to drive ratings and get clicks.
And we're going to have the same thing happen again.
Listen, it's this line.
What's the big deal?
What's the big deal?
What's the big deal with emails?
Everybody does it.
What's the big deal?
Everybody does it.
What's the big deal?
Both sides meddle in elections.
What's the big deal?
No, listen.
The big deal is that the American people believe these guys can get away with murder, literally.
And if you want to have people have trust in the system, there's got to be accountability, period.
Left, right, middle.
The part I was going to ask him with Barr, why they didn't ask the question.
Why didn't they do the investigation?
He said, the only thing is I wish I would have done this investigation earlier.
You were talking about Barr.
You know where I went to?
I went to the area maybe they didn't want to do the investigation because they, deep down inside, thought maybe there was some kind of connection to Russia.
Do you know what I'm saying?
Like the fear for Barr was.
I'm saying the internal voices, the Bill Barrs on Trump's camp were like, dude, let's just kind of not do because what if there is and we don't.
So you think they were drinking some of the media Kool-Aid?
I don't know if they were or not.
I'm not saying they were or not.
All I'm saying is it was such an effective campaign that got his own side to believe it.
Like, imagine if everybody decides to go on a smear campaign about you and we work together, right?
And I've seen how you are for how many years now?
Three years of, you know, being around each other?
I kind of know who you are, right?
And they say, and all of a sudden I'm like, yeah, maybe he is like that.
Maybe he is this.
Maybe he is that.
And I start second guessing based on what I've personally witnessed from you, right?
And I start buying into that.
The scary thing is, if Trump's own camp started kind of talking beyond closed doors, saying, maybe this guy did something with Russia.
Would he even tell us anyways if he did?
He probably wouldn't tell us if he did.
You know, he's so much about wanting to win.
So maybe Barr didn't want to investigate it.
I don't know.
Again, I never heard any of that for all the time.
I'm not saying I'm right or I'm wrong.
Only thing is, if you were so certain that something was going on with spying, why the hell wouldn't you start earlier?
Because I'm going to tell you, because Barr is, keep in mind, Barr was attorney general before in the final days.
Barr's a beast.
Yes.
He was attorney general at like 38 or 39, I want to say.
So he's been a.
He's a heavyweight.
We know.
He's a heavyweight.
And he's been around for a long time.
There is a, for many people in Washington who are Trump allies, at least or were Trump allies where they might be, there's this push and pull of certain people really overthink and worry about other people are going to say about them.
Are they going to be allowed at the McLean Country Club?
What's going to happen while I'm at, Barr lives in McLean?
What happens when I'm going to these events and people see me at the parties?
Are they going to think that, uh-oh, this guy's unhinged or he did something politically charged, abused his government power for a political reason?
I think this was a, he knew that something stunk.
He knew something was bad.
He didn't want it to happen in 2020 to become a campaign issue.
And he overthought this one.
And actually, guess what?
It probably was a campaign issue because if the spying went on into Trump's administration and he had to waste multiple years of his administration pushing back on these Russia rumors, it most certainly was a 2020 issue.
That's where I would just, that's my thought.
And how much credibility do you think John Durham has?
I mean, he seems to be, I probably can't, I just, I don't know him.
I think that my concern also, too, is that the longer we get past Trump leaving office, that people start to say, why are we going back to something in the past?
To your point that you raised, like, why does this matter now?
Is this okay, put the one person, but should we really be making a big deal?
The longer you get away from it, the less likelihood there is of being true accountability.
Yeah, I mean, listen, every day, for God knows how long, everybody was watching the OJ trial case, right?
Okay.
OJ.
O.J. Watching the OJ trial case, right?
Okay.
How long did that last?
How many times a day was it on TV?
How many hours did it was on TV?
Biggest story of the day.
So it was in 94.
Let me ask you a question.
Let me ask you a question.
Why?
Who cares?
So let's take your position.
Who cares whether he did it or not?
Let's just, you know, who cares if he did the how does that affect my life?
Actually, think about it.
How did what OJ did to his ex-wife affect your life?
Think about that.
But no, actually think about it.
Directly?
Directly.
Indirectly.
No, you go down a slippery slope.
But go to.
Murder two people.
You probably want accountability.
So we are more concerned about holding citizens accountable than those who create the laws and have control of the U.S. government that we pay taxes to.
And yeah, it's okay.
You're and a half watching OJ every day.
Of course we have to do that.
But year and a half of trying to catch the bad guy, if there was any manipulation behind this with the government, guys, we just got to move on.
We just got to move on because OJ's trial was way more important than Hillary Clinton and this kind of stuff.
No, to be clear, I think that's why I kind of get you need to have some accountability.
Yeah.
But does this move the needle movement?
I think in election.
That's my only question.
No, no, forget election.
I don't even think election.
Forget about the election.
It's got nothing to do with election.
You know what it's going to do?
Here's what it's going to do.
It's going to, one, you know, get the next guy that's thinking about doing it to say, it ain't as easy as it used to be before.
Kind of kickback, guys, because the price is that big.
And number two, what it's going to do is it's going to get people to say, okay, you know, all these guys that have been telling me that they're doing all this stuff for me in my favor.
Yeah, you were full of shit.
And I'm sorry.
My vote matters a lot.
And the same way, Barry Goldwater, what he did, when they went after him, you know, four years later, the African-American vote went from 64% Democrat to 92% Democrat.
Yeah, that was a consequence.
The price had to be paid.
And the American people today have to know because their vote matters today more than ever before.
There's one other thing, and I'll also put kind of a finer point on this.
I think public trust in government institutions is probably at an all-time low right now.
I know trust in aspects of the country.
Certainly for Congressman.
Definitely for Congressman, aspects of federal law enforcement.
And obviously, there are all sorts of concerns with elections and things like that.
I think we need to make sure that the public has confidence that all aspects of law enforcement, of national security-type agencies, that leaders who are in the White House, they have that confidence of what actually, to what extent government power is being abused, to what extent the people who are writing laws, is this going to be allowed to happen again?
Is this all essentially just, do we have people throwing the towel to say this whole system is rigged?
I think that's terrible for democracy.
It's a big part of the reason why Trump won, because people thought the whole system was rigged and it was stacked against people.
And certainly you look at stagflation, lack of wage growth over the last couple of decades, and you'd say, ever since NAFTA, and you'd say that's definitely the case.
We have to do something here in the country to restore some aspect of trust and confidence because right now it's terrible.
I mean, look, as someone who grew up as kind of, you know, the G-Men, you know, the FBI, like these are the good guys.
I mean, I mean, I have a number of people I went to college with, for example, the one in the FBI.
And, you know, they're always like, you know, the FBI, those are the good guys.
Like, yeah, like, we're the ones who are stopping the bad guys.
But now, what's happened over the last couple of years with the internal politics and seeing the swirl, people have many people that have a negative view of our law enforcement or some of these government agencies, and I think that's terrible, or even just the legal system as a whole.
And we got to restore some of that trust.
Yeah, I think I had Gordon Chang on, who lived in China, who he lived in China for 20-some years, lawyer, yeah.
And he says in 1980-something, there were only four law schools in China.
And what the law does, it increases trust that people cannot be bullied.
Now, we all know I've paid, I don't know, in the last 12 years, $10 million to legal fees, not because of lawsuits, but because of contract, this contract, that contract, this.
And every time you talk to a lawyer for 10 minutes, that was a two-hour conversation.
Here's $1,200.
So I have my own opinions about lawyers.
But don't get me started on it.
The legal system, the legal system allows you to walk outside and feel safe.
The legal system allows me to drive in the streets safer.
The legal system allows me to have my kids go out and they're not around me.
I'm not overly paranoid because I trust the legal system.
There's a certain safety and security the legal system brings to you, right?
They say many times women are with a man.
They want to feel secure and safe, right?
When she sits next to you, you feel safe.
You're like, okay, there's a certain safety that you're bringing to me.
Okay.
That's a role that we got to play many times.
I think that's a legal system.
And I think the importance about this is the American people are going to say, okay, there is law and order in America.
That's all there is.
There is, I've had one too many speeding tickets.
I've deserved every one of them.
My license has been suspended a couple of times.
I was speeding.
I deserved it.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you how I was.
And every time the cop, one time a cop pulls me over and he says, Do you know how fast you were going?
I said, Yeah, much faster than you.
You couldn't catch up.
And he starts laughing.
He says, What is the matter with you?
I said, Bro, I got so many tickets, man.
What do you want to do?
If you're going to give it to me, give it to me.
But I'm just having fun with you.
He says, you know what?
Is he always like this?
And Jen's like, I'm so sorry, but he is.
He's always like this.
You know what?
Just can you slow down?
I'm like, I'll slow down.
I'm so sorry.
He says, just go.
And I left.
Never gave me a ticket.
Well, you didn't slow down.
No, of course I didn't slow down, but I left.
But I did slow down for five miles.
You have to.
You have to respect.
Accountability, Pat.
We got to talk about accountability.
I got pulled over for this like two years ago for talking on my cell phone, right?
And the officer is like, why were you on your cell phone?
I'm like, I was talking to the president.
And he just looks at me and he's like, huh?
And it's like, yeah, I was talking to the president.
He's like, and then he kind of paused for me and he's like, why did you choose a Bluetooth?
Because it was cutting out.
And I was like, it was a president.
So I had to talk to him.
And he's kind of paused.
I'm in Arlington, Virginia, right?
So, no, I got the ticket.
Now, that didn't.
He didn't give you the ticket.
It didn't help me.
I didn't give you the ticket.
Yeah, I probably could have said great story.
What I should have said was like, I was on the phone with Hillary Clinton.
Yeah.
Oh, you know what?
Oh, sorry, sir.
Can I escort you to your house?
You're going to be safe.
Exactly.
Sir, I was organizing the next Black Lives Matter protest.
You may have been safer, especially where you're at.
Yeah, I guarantee you myself.
Did he believe you?
Of course.
Okay, buddy.
Sure.
You're talking to the president.
Here's the ticket.
By the way, did you hear about what happened with Remington and Sandy Hook?
You heard about that?
So let me read this story.
Pretty interesting what happened here.
So what story is it on?
Number three.
Okay, here we go.
So Sandy Hook family settled with Remington, making first-time gun maker held liable for mass shooting.
This is an ABC News story.
Remington Arms agreed Tuesdays to settle liability claims from the families of five adults and four children killed in a massacre of Sandy Elementary School, according to a new court filing marking the first time a gun manufacturer had been held accountable for mass shooting in the U.S. Remington agreed to pay the families $73 million.
Thoughts.
Really, I'm worried about what this is going to lead to for the lawsuits against future lawsuits and settlements from gun manufacturers.
This could be the first step in truly wiping out the Second Amendment in the United States.
I get worried about the precedent that this is.
Why would Remington agree, though?
They must have made the calculation that if they go to the courts and that they would lose even bigger.
But it's a slippery slope when you start going down that path to hold manufacturers accountable for horrific, horrific murders of kids.
Yeah, but they didn't.
They just sold it, right?
Because it says the families argued Remington negligently entrusted to civilian consumers an assault rifle that is assault-style rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act through the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle.
Well, I think what's interesting is that they really jumped on the marketing component.
So here's the deal.
They said marketing weapons of war directly to young people, known to have strong fascination with firearms, is reckless.
And too many families know deadly conduct using marketing to convey that a person is more powerful and more masculine by using a particular type or brand of firearm is deeply irresponsible.
And then that's what you talked about, the Connecticut unfair trade practices through the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle.
They keep using that term.
But that's marketing.
Let's use the word marketing.
But then that means you have to go sue every movie that had a gun in it that a kid watched.
You have to go sue every house for making G.I. Joe's.
Yeah, go get 50 cents.
Go sue every rapper that talks about cap, you know, that talks about all of them.
So why would Remington settle?
That's exactly the question.
Because if they went to court, they would have lost everything.
Yeah, but I get that.
But why would they lose that part?
You get jurors in there, and you're talking about kids that were killed.
And so you get a jury together.
It doesn't matter where in the country people get really uncomfortable.
Rightfully so when they see something horrific like that.
But the precedent that's being set here, I mean, I saw that first thing I thought was Second Amendment is cooked.
They're going to basically wipe out domestic gun manufacturers.
First of all, what you do is if, I'm sorry, go ahead, finish your story.
No, no, no.
What I was going to say is, so you know the good and the bad of lawyers is many times you'll sue and just because you're a headache, somebody's going to settle with you, right?
But now, guess what every lawyer is doing?
Searching any shootings that's happened in the last five years, 10 years, and you're calling and saying, hey, did you see what Remington just got?
Let's go.
30% I get.
You get the rest.
If I get 50 million, I get 15 million.
You get 35 million.
You up for it?
Let's go after them.
Because they're settling cases left and right.
If this is a $73 million case over like seven years or whatever the amount of timeline is that they're paying, what was it, seven years, eight years, 10 years, some number that they're paying?
This is going to set the precedence for this to happen many, many more times.
What I thought about on why they settled is if you did sell guns to an underage person, absolutely this has to be the case.
If you did sell guns to somebody that you didn't follow the background check of that state, yes, absolutely.
But that's not Remington.
That's the dealer of the arm, is it not?
That's the best.
Yeah, if Remington sold it directly is what I'm saying.
But I thought it went through, and I apologize on those.
I thought it went through a dealer.
It did.
No, it did go through a court.
So Remington, I mean, okay, so then why isn't that dealer, the person who actually sold it to him?
That would be if someone turned a blind eye, if there was some corner that was cut or something like that.
But that's not the manufacturer.
Well, let me use an analogy.
Let's say you buy a Ford F-150 and some psychopath runs to escape in Wisconsin.
Sure, yeah, and you run over somebody in a parade, whatever.
Is the manufacturer to be blamed?
Is this a problem?
This is very slippery.
Whereas 99.9% of people are just going to drive their car and not do that because they're not after the vehicle industry.
They're after the gun industry.
Some people might say that they are after the oil industry.
Yeah, but Ford's already working to put in electric vehicles.
I mean, we're going to have all-electric vehicles in California and several other states by 2035.
I mean, this is specifically targeted at the gun industry.
And as Jason said, they're trying to find loopholes to completely wipe out the Second Amendment.
This is the one area where I don't argue with the families.
I don't argue with the families.
One of the kids' name is a name I like a lot.
Okay.
I don't argue with the families.
I don't even want to wish this upon my own enemies for this to become a reality.
So for them, yeah, everything to you in that mindset of a parent, totally get it.
I fully understand it.
At all costs for anything that took your kid away, yes.
Fully understand the anger, the rage, 1 million percent.
Set that part aside.
The other side is, if the strategy was ever to go after Second Amendment, this is a brilliant strategy to do because it's going to scare the crap out of every gunmaker out there.
If you're a gunmaker, I mean, you're basically looking right now saying, I don't even know how we can be domiciled in the U.S. We're cooked.
I mean, that business is now cooked because it doesn't matter if it's Remington or Cole or Smith ⁇ Wesson or anyone else domestic gun manufacturers, they have the targets on them now.
Let me ask this about AOC.
Let's transition into Texas because obviously when you think guns, you think Texas, you think about a lot of that.
But AOC says it's inevitable that Texas will turn blue.
This is an insider story, okay?
AOC made the claim Saturday during the campaign stop for progressive candidates Jessica Cesneros and Greg Sassar Casar.
Cassar is running for primaries for Texas 35th congressional district against Democratic lawmaker Lloyd Doguette.
Cisneros is running in the state 28th congressional district against another Democratic lawmaker, Representative Henry Soulard.
Here's what's exciting about Jessica's race and Greg's race is that if we flip Texas, we flip the country.
Texas turning blue is inevitable.
Inevitable.
It will happen.
The only question is when, said AOC.
We are going to fight for a living wage as a minimum wage.
We're going to make sure we unionize the hell out of the state.
We're going to make sure that we confront corrupt industries and lobbyists and big money, said AOC.
Will that ever happen in Texas?
Not in the way that she's thinking for a simple fact that I think Democrats, as I said earlier, have done such damage to themselves with Latino and Hispanic American communities.
I mean, I'm old enough to remember 20 years ago when people said that Florida was going to go blue.
It would never come back.
Look at the diversity that we have in Florida.
Look at we have all these people from Central and South American countries, people coming from Africa and other countries from all over the world.
There's no way that's going to just stay this red state.
Well, guess what?
Many of the people who are coming to Florida support freedom.
They support democracy.
Who are people, to your point earlier about laws, and you want to know who really respects laws in America?
Immigrants.
Why?
Because in some of the countries where they came from, they didn't have the rule of law.
That was something that maybe they had in America.
So the success story that you've seen with Latinos and Hispanic Americans in Florida, I think also the damage that Democrats have done in Texas will make it tougher.
Now, obviously, they're not monolithic community.
So we have not had the same movement.
We haven't had quite the same movement with, say, Mexican Americans we have with, say, Cuban Americans.
But I think AOC's taking a little too much of a tunnel vision on this one.
I don't think it's quite accurate.
Could at some point a Democrat win in the state of Texas?
Look, I mean, you can never say like never.
That's indefinitely the rest of it.
Do I think that the state's ultimately going to trend to become blue?
Not necessarily, not with the way that Democrats have turned a blind eye to it.
But it has been trending.
Oh, it's been traction, no doubt.
But what has changed, and trends are tough to break, but what has changed the trend is the Democrats' embrace of BLM.
And you look at that Rio Grande Valley seat that flipped.
There was a very strongly Democratic seat that we won along with Trump in 2020.
Here's the thing: I was on the phone yesterday with, along with President Trump.
We were talking to someone who we'll just say they're high up in congressional stuff.
And we're talking to them about Texas.
There's a seat that is a Democrat plus 10 district, plus 10, usually like in the three to five range, even on a good year.
Maybe it's in play.
Maybe if there's a kind of a tidal wave, D plus 10 that Republicans are targeting.
And the reason being, because they think that Hispanics are going to flip so much against Biden and against the Democrats that it's actually in play.
That dynamic.
But what I don't know is how much of that is kind of the.
Which city is that in?
To be honest with you, I don't remember the exact words.
If you look at the map of Texas, you look at any major city that they voted blue, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio.
Well, Adam, look at this bottom right here on the map on the TV.
It's all blue, right?
And what is that right up against?
It's up against the border.
We're going to have two plus million immigrants come into the country this year alone.
Imagine this keeps going.
Hispanics do not like.
Hispanics that live here, don't like the illegal immigration, because they know what it does to their jobs, they know what it does to their wages, etc etc etc.
When is that map from?
This is from 2020.
This is this is before the immigration, this could.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in 2022.
It's a lot of red right there, but we'll see.
But look at the popular vote.
I mean it's, it's neck and neck, it's, it's eight, six percentage points.
Yeah, I mean, even when Beto went against Ted I watched that debate.
I mean that was a close call between those two guys.
You know and and and Ted should have lapped a guy.
Yeah and it's.
And Beto just flipped his stance on guns on second amendment because he, he understood that it was close.
He thinks he can win Texas.
They think they can flip Texas, but 2022, Texas is going to be a bellwether.
Yeah, you can never say never, but in the short term, at least the next two, four years uh I, I don't see it it moving as fast as Aoc would like.
I think uh, Aoc maybe uh she, she probably has better success in south Florida.
Uh, she likes south Florida, likes hanging out, she likes that a lot and she, well, you would agree if uh, Texas flips, that's that really hurts Republicans' chances.
But it's not.
It's not in a in a vacuum.
You look at the way that, um say Wisconsin Michigan Pennsylvania, have all shifted further to the right in the last two presidential races.
Uh those, those have not been contested states in some 20, 25 years and now they're viewed as toss-ups.
florida got two more republican by the way just so you know florida went up two more republican which means the florida state matters more now than it did a year ago two years ago three years ago four years ago it's going in the uh direction of those who like to be free those who like to have jobs those who like to pay low taxes those who like to be left alone, those who like crypto with the guys we had at the house yesterday to God knows one time talking about meta and NFTs and all these different things.
Florida's got some good strategies, good things going for themselves.
I just hope Texas fights to keep that going because I think I want to say 51 or 52 of Fortune 500 companies headquarters is in that state.
That's a lot of states.
The only one beating them is New York City.
New York's the only state that has more Fortune 500 companies headquarters than it does there.
I think Silicon Valley is competing for that as well with Texas.
Anyways, Jason, this has been a blast.
Thank you so much for coming out.
Can you do me a favor, put the link to Getter below for people that want to learn more about Getter.
Put it both in the comment section as well as in the chat section so people can go check it out for themselves and maybe join and see, you know, experience it for yourself.
