Harmeet K. Dhillon, a freedom-focused lawyer and RNC chair candidate, argues Section 230 has been weaponized to let tech giants like Twitter censor dissent—98% of California’s election disinformation removals were executed despite no legal mandate—while shielding them from liability. She blames Republican losses on ignored voting integrity flaws and calls for a grassroots RNC shift, targeting systemic corruption and cultural Marxism. If elected, she’d prioritize reform over McDaniel’s unopposed tenure, aiming to restore conservative unity and appeal to independents, with Levant backing her as pivotal for Canada’s freedom agenda. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, meet the freedom lawyer who just might be the next chairman of the Republican National Committee.
A feature interview with Harmeet Dylan.
It's December 27th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you sensorious bug.
Harvey Dillon is one of my favorite people.
Such a great pundit.
You probably recognize her from TV if you watch any American TV.
She's often on shows like Tucker Carlson tonight, talking about Republican matters, legal matters, freedom of speech.
She's everywhere on TV, but she also runs a very busy freedom-oriented law practice, one of the few to do so almost exclusively.
In fact, she set up a whole freedom-oriented legal defense fund, especially active in California during the lockdowns, sort of like our Canadian version of the Democracy Fund.
Just amazing.
I'm very delighted that today she's our guest for the whole show.
She's next.
And joining us now is Harmeet Dhillon, who I regard as the most important free speech lawyer in America.
Of course, she does other things too.
Harmeet, great to see you.
Thanks for taking the time to meet with us.
Thanks for having me, Ezra.
Well, I want to disclose to our viewers that you're not just an interesting commentator and expert that we talked to.
You have in the past actually helped Rebel News as a lawyer as we faced battles of free speech and canceled culture.
So, you know, we know your work is excellent.
You're not just a talker, you're a doer.
I don't even know how you get it all done.
I see you on Tucker Carlson.
I see you on the media.
But for example, you were recently on the ground in Arizona going toe-to-toe with Democrat lawyers about the election shenanigans there.
I don't know how you, like, you're literally all over America fighting for freedom.
I don't know how you do it.
Well, you know, it matters on what you prioritize in life.
So for me, it's pretty much family and these free speech and freedom issues.
And so while I sort of started out as a free speech lawyer and have really focused my career on that, you also realize that if you don't have the right laws in the government, if you don't have the right leaders who care about those issues, you know, ultimately those words on paper don't matter.
We saw that during COVID.
You guys saw that in Canada, certainly, and you're continuing to suffer there more than we are, I think.
And so I think these things go hand in hand.
Elon's Takeover: Hope or Suppression?00:04:52
And if you really want to affect change, you have to be happy to take a big picture look at it.
So I do work long hours.
Well, we're grateful that you do.
I have to tell you, I felt like things were going in the wrong direction for a number of years.
As a user of big tech platforms like Twitter and YouTube and Facebook, Rebel News has faced demonetization and deplatforming.
And I felt like it was only getting worse and they were getting more brazen.
And then the 2020 election and frankly, the lackluster results in the U.S. Senate midterms.
But I have to say, I've been, as the kids say, white-pilled, as in I've been given a hope about the future by Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter and his emphasis on free speech and his revelations coming clean about what Twitter did in the past.
I have to say, for the first time in a few years, I'm actually feeling hopeful again.
I shouldn't say that because I'm tempting fate.
What would you say is the state of freedom in big tech online, on our phones, on our apps?
Is Elon Musk a blip or is he maybe a new trend?
I would call Elon Musk a trend.
I would say that, you know, look, historically overall, Twitter's censorship situation has really waxed and waned.
And the recent revelation, you know, earlier this month of the Twitter files by independent journalists Matt Taibbi and Barry Weiss working together has been an eye-opener.
And that was led by the owner of the company saying this needs to happen for freedom.
You know, I don't know his politics particularly, but he has said very strongly that the fact that certain lawyers and certain politicians meddled in the 2020 election is outrageous and can never happen again, that the government has meddled, that there have been all these communications from the government.
He fired a former FBI lawyer who was meddling with the release of those documents about Twitter shadow banning and reading of people's direct messages and things like that.
Now, you still look at some of the other tech platforms.
Google has been, I would say, worse than Twitter in terms of YouTube's suppression has been going on for years.
I would not even call it suppression, I'd call it manipulation, boosting certain kinds of searches, de-boosting certain kinds of searches.
You know, like hate speech against Muslims is sort of treated differently than hate speech against Jews, for example, in a report that came out several years ago, things like that.
Facebook is kind of all over the map.
If you look at the testimony of Mark Zuckerberg in Congress, he seems to be confused by the whole thing and like doesn't like censorship, but all the people he hires are in favor of it.
And, you know, of course, he may be speaking out of both sides of his mouth because he's played very heavily with his money in getting Democrats elected through, I would call, pseudo-nonprofit efforts with valid harvesting and so forth.
So I would call it complicated.
But I do think that Elon Musk has led a new era of blastnost, if you will, online.
And I hope to see more of that.
And it's refreshing.
I do feel like it's a new opportunity for us to have that conversation in the country and the world.
The most hopeful and unexpected statement came from the boss of Netflix, which is, again, a pretty liberal company, judging by their content.
And he was pressed on Elon Musk and said he admires Musk and he likes the free speech approach.
And though he may have a different management style, he was very positive.
Here's a clip of that from a recent conference.
I just thought, well, wow, maybe free speech is spreading.
Take a look.
You're on there all the time.
What do you think of what's going on?
I'm excited.
I'm excited.
Elon Musk is the bravest, most creative person on the planet.
I mean, you know, what he's done in multiple areas is phenomenal.
You know, his style is different than like, I'm trying to be like a really steady, respectable leader.
You know, he doesn't care.
He's just like out there, you know?
But think of a guy who's spending $44 billion.
He could have built the biggest, he could have built a mile-long yacht for $44 billion, okay?
But it's like not good for the planet.
He's not interested.
He's in for a speech.
Do you think what he's doing is good for the planet?
I'm 100% convinced that he is trying to help the world in all of his endeavors.
Okay.
And he's trying to help the world in that one because he believes in free speech and it's power for democracy and that there's an option.
Now, how he goes about it, again, you know, it's not how I would do it, but I'm deeply respectful.
And I'm amazed that people are like so nitpicky on him on that.
$44 Billion and Counting00:04:01
Yeah, sure, the blue check mark.
He's making a mess of some things or not, you know, but it's like, give the guy a break.
He just spent all this money to try to make it much better for democracy and society to have a more open platform.
And I am sympathetic to that agenda.
I thought that was encouraging.
And maybe Elon Musk, well, he showed that Twitter is actually growing, if we can believe him.
He's saying that the average daily users for Twitter is record highs.
There was this rumor that all the advertisers were going to flee.
Well, he met with Tim Cook of Apple, their biggest advertiser, who confirms that they're staying.
I think that Elon Musk might just actually pull this off.
I mean, it's bad to bet against him.
He's the guy who built SpaceX and Tesla.
You know what?
I'm nervous about letting my heart hope too much because I'm used to being disappointed.
But wouldn't it be something if we had a new era of free speech?
I don't know, man.
Maybe I'm being a little hopeful.
Let me talk to you about something that I know you're a real expert on.
And it sounds technical.
It's Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which sounds very weird.
Sounds like it's about pornography, which it actually sort of was back in the day.
That was, you correct me if I'm wrong, Harmie, that was a rule put into law by Congress decades ago, actually, that protected internet service providers from the content on their systems.
So if you're just running an internet company and some user put pornography up, you weren't held responsible for it unless it was brought to your attention and you did it.
Like you were not regarded as a publisher in the first instance.
And that Section 230 has been stretched to protect internet companies, including Google, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, from any legal consequences for anything they do.
Now, correct me if I misexplained Section 230, but why don't you tell me a little bit about that and how it might be reformed to allow more freedom on these web platforms?
Section 230 was passed in 1996, really as a result or a, I would say, a reaction to a supreme, you know, to some legal opinions that purported to punish an internet, like an email company.
I mean, let's step back a little bit because, you know, in 1996, we didn't have any of these apps.
You did not have the internet as we know it right now.
We had AOL dial-up.
I remember that.
That was really your only option to get email.
You know, you've got mail and these like clunky apps and we do it over the phone line.
And back then, you know, there were a few of these platforms like Prodigy and a few others where you could get mail.
And some were painting themselves more family-friendly than the others.
And so they did not allow certain things on their platform.
They didn't want there to be pornography and stuff.
And so, you know, they would have a rule that you couldn't do it.
But then if it snuck through, somebody could sue you for that.
And so the law was passed to say internet companies that are simply hosting other people's content cannot be held liable for it.
You know, like you said, exactly, unless there's sort of a takedown process with respect to certain illegal content, child pornography or what have you, and defamatory speech, criminal things like that.
But then there's a catch-all phrase that's also added in 230 that you can't be held responsible for moderating content on these categories, but also that's otherwise objectionable.
Now, the otherwise objectionable category has been stretched to really as sort of a sort of afterthought to really become the entire rule.
And tech companies, now tech has evolved to all these complex platforms that today manipulate the speech that we see, censor speech, even remove the former president of the United States while he was a sitting president from the internet, something that Elon has reversed.
First Amendment Challenges00:10:48
Donald Trump.
And when you try to sue them for taking down speech in violation of their own terms of service, they say, we can do whatever we want.
Our protection under Section 230, Trump's tort law, and Trump's contract law.
That's literally their position in court.
So, for example, you have a prominent feminist in Canada named Megan Murphy.
And I represented Megan in a case against Twitter where Megan was calling out a transgender activist in, I think, in the Vancouver area, who would really troll immigrant women by seeking waxing of this male gender.
Jonathan Yanieve, we know him too well, I'm afraid, Harmen.
Yeah, Jonathan Yanieve.
And so this feminist, I mean, not my views, but this feminist said, well, she didn't think this person should be invading women's locker rooms, asking girls questions about their periods, and asking women to touch his genitalia.
So she called it out on Twitter.
And at the time, Twitter did not ban so-called misgendering as a category of speech that could get you suspended or banned.
Well, there's all these transgender activists there, and all these activists had a direct line to content suppressors at Twitter.
And so Twitter not only removed our client, banned her permanently for calling Jessica a he, oh, there he goes again, and then retroactively changed the terms of service to cover this conduct and then said that apply.
Well, you know, you don't retroactively change contracts in America or in Canada or the free world.
And so the court said, well, sorry, under 230, they can do whatever they want.
Their contract doesn't really matter.
Now, that is not what Congress intended.
I have worked hard over the years to get members of Congress to comprehend this.
I've testified in Congress several times about this issue.
And frankly, too many members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are just captive.
You can give them a political contribution and they'll do whatever you want.
That's sad.
That includes many Republican members of Congress.
I am, you know, some who are running for leadership positions right now.
And so it's kind of disgusting.
But ultimately, maybe there will be a bipartisan will on this issue, or we elect better Republicans who will actually win elections.
That's one of the reasons I'm running for RNC chair because, you know, all of this is pointless, you know, cocktail party chatter unless you actually win elections and implement change through strength.
We're going to get back to your campaign for RNC chair.
I'm very excited about it.
We'll talk about it in a minute, but let's just take one more minute on section 230.
Here's a way I think about it.
And you tell me if this is correct.
If you put up, let's say on the wall of a school, a corkboard, like a bulletin board, and anyone could affix something to it, it makes sense that you wouldn't sue the bulletin board owner if they didn't have any rules for what could go on.
They would be like a phone booth.
You have no idea what people say when they use your phone booth.
So that's a platform.
But a publisher is someone who uses their judgment, edits things, chooses, curates.
Now, that's very different.
That's not a bulletin board.
That's not a payphone.
That's a radio broadcaster.
That's a newspaper editor.
And it seems to me the tech companies want to be treated like a platform.
Oh, we're just an empty vessel.
You can't hold us accountable for what's in us.
But then they make very publisher-type decisions like you just described of the Canadian feminist who was saying certain words.
So I think they're having it both ways, that they want the immunity of a neutral bulletin board corkboard, but they want the power to say, no, no, we're only letting things we like up on our bulletin board like a publisher would.
I can't believe that has gone on for as long as it has, but I think you're right.
I mean, if you look at the largest lobbyists in Washington, D.C., it's not the military.
It's not the banks.
It's the tech companies.
They're the biggest spenders there, aren't they?
Oh, yeah, absolutely.
I mean, by the way, they subsidize and buy, you know, sponsorships of big conservative organizations as well.
I wouldn't name names, but sometimes I was surprised at one point to go to one of the biggest gatherings of conservatives and see Platinum-sponsored Google.
I mean, they want access, right?
So I think you're exactly right.
When Congress passed Section 230 in 1996, there was no concept of an internet that we know today.
There was no concept of filtering, deboosting, boosting, shadow banning, none of these things.
And so today, literally, I would say up until Elon Musk took charge and fired people who were doing this, and maybe even today in some degree, literally everything you see there is curated in some way.
It isn't unfiltered.
It's very different than typing a message in my Upper East Side apartment in the 1990s and dialing up the internet and sending it to my mom.
Okay.
Like that was literally the equivalent of the phone lines.
But today, you know, it's like a magazine.
It's like sending a letter to the editor of Vanity Fair and they decide whether they're going to publish it or not.
I mean, so that's very different.
And when they choose to publish it and it's defamatory or what have you, or it's terrorists planning an attack on Israel or America, you know, they're like, oh, we don't have nothing to do with that.
But they actually are reading and filtering and all of that.
And so new laws are needed to reflect these new realities.
And new politicians are needed who aren't owned by big tech.
Yeah.
We'll move on in just one sec.
I got to just ask you one last question because we see the revelations from the Twitter files.
And again, kudos to Elon Musk for airing his own dirty laundry.
He, well, he bought the laundromat and he's airing someone else's dirty laundry.
He's showing really the internal machinations all the way up to the executive suites of how they censored things and how they misled the public.
It really is quite incredible for someone to do to a company that they just bought is to put all their bad news out in public.
I don't think I've ever seen it done before.
Here's my question to you.
A lot of times people say not just Section 230 gives these companies immunity, but hey, it's a private company.
They can do what they want.
They don't have to let you write on their platform, just like Fox News doesn't have to let you appear on their shows.
They own it.
They can choose.
But, but if government agencies, whether it's the FBI, the CIA, the White House, Dr. Fauci and the NIH, if a government institution emailed, called Twitter and said, censor this guy, silence that guy, then it's not a private company anymore.
Then it's not a Section 230 decision anymore.
It's really the law that I would guess applies would be the U.S. First Amendment.
I mean, I agree with that.
That actually ties into a lawsuit that my law firm did and my nonprofit, the Center for American Liberty.
There's a prominent conservative commentator named Rogan O'Hanley.
He's a former entertainment lawyer in California and now a social media influencer.
And very popular with young people on Twitter and other platforms.
He's still on Instagram and others.
But he was removed from Twitter after the 2020 election for posting some, I think, I would say very mild critiques, but popular critiques of the integrity of that election, calling for an audit of the California election, which, by the way, had probably over a million ballots that went out to people who aren't registered voters in California.
So that's a good question to be asking.
And he also questioned whether Joe Biden, if he had the most votes ever in American history, why is there a barbed wire fence around the United States Capitol?
He was banned from Twitter for that.
We later learned through judicial wash efforts, judicial wash being one of our activist nonprofits on the free speech and government secrecy side in the United States, that the California Secretary of State's office specifically requested that our client be removed because he was supposedly spreading election disinformation.
And we have a document that demonstrates that.
And some Biden campaign vendor was paid $25 million by my taxpayer dollars in the state of California to censor our speech.
And it worked.
And in fact, 98% of the posts that were recommended by the Secretary of State of California to be taken down were taken down.
We've since learned that that effort was not just restricted to California, but other states and also to the federal government.
You mentioned Fauci, you mentioned FBI.
You know, Mark Zuckerberg has come out and said on Joe Rogan's podcast that the FBI was requesting certain information be taken out about Hunter Biden's laptop and things like that.
And so I completely agree.
We did file a lawsuit under the First Amendment saying that this constituted government interference with free speech.
Now, the district court dismissed the case.
The case was just argued this month in the Ninth Circuit, and we will see what happens with it.
I think this is a fundamental issue because we, and I don't want to get into the weeds here, but we have other concepts in American law that say that while generally First Amendment issues are restricted to government activity and sort of spaces where anybody can go, there is some analysis under California law and some other law that if a private area is effectively a free speech forum, because let's say it's a company town or a mall or something like that, then there could be aspects of First Amendment rights that attach to leafleting and other First Amendment activities.
And so, you know, some lawyers have tried to import those concepts into the First Amendment analysis here.
You know, courts haven't really bought into that.
I think the jurisprudence needs to evolve to reflect the current reality that today, and particularly during COVID, really the place we lived our lives for the most part was on the internet.
And if you weren't allowed on the internet to speak, you were depersoned.
This is China-style social credit social programming, and it's unacceptable in a so-called democracy or public.
Yeah, incredible.
Voter Roles Need Reform00:13:10
Donald Trump, he has his strengths and weaknesses.
I think one of the best things he did as president was his judicial appointments.
He did a lot of them, and they seem to be very strong, constitution-loving, I would say, strict constructionists, if that's the phrase.
I think his legacy in the courts is one of his strongest legacies.
And hopefully, some of those judges will be more freedom-oriented.
Do you have any thoughts on Trump's judicial appointments as regards free speech?
Trump's appellate judicial appointments were terrific.
His team chose, and frankly, Mitch McConnell chose to focus on appellate appointments.
And so the consequence of that is if you're not pushing through trial court appointments, you have to lose at trial to get to a good judge if you draw them in the Court of Appeals.
Got it.
So the work was incomplete.
And the work was incomplete in part because of, you know, the size of majorities in the Senate and pushing people through.
The Republican Party has underperformed at the polls over the last three election cycles.
If we had done better, we would have had even more great judges at the trial court level and the appellate level.
Yeah.
Well, I have to say, that's an interesting point of view that he didn't do enough and there were other areas he could have done it.
I think not just him.
Yeah, it was the Senate.
Sure, I take your point.
Here in Canada, we had a conservative prime minister for nine years, and he simply didn't care about the courts.
And so whatever good he did, I think has been undone by appointments, including his own appointments.
Let's get to the Republicans because we've touched on them a few times.
I see you on Fox News and other media talking about the law, especially in election battles.
And you were there in Arizona.
That was crazy in Arizona.
We sent a reporter, Katie Davis Court, down there for a while.
I mean, we just couldn't stay there for weeks and weeks and weeks.
It's not election day.
It's election month.
What kind of a country takes three weeks to count ballots?
You know, even Brazil counted all their ballots in one night.
What happened?
What happened is Democrats have been very successful and outmaneuvered Republicans, not this year, not last year, but over the last many years, while Republicans were frankly out to lunch on this issue.
I'm just one Republican who's been jumping up and down and screaming about it for years, including at the RNC.
And, you know, people just shrug and spend money on whatever else they spend money on.
And so Democrats have expanded voting day to voting weeks and voting months.
They've allowed, at the same time, we have fairly loose voter roles, i.e. we don't keep updating them when people move, die, you know, or otherwise become ineligible to vote.
We still send them ballots.
COVID enabled a wholesale shift to vote by mail.
In the 1990s, both Republicans and Democrats, former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and cabinet member James Baker had a commission here in the United States where they both concluded in their commission that voting by mail is less secure than voting in person.
This is also logical and obvious.
And yet, you know, you have a combination of insecure voting methods being spammed out to all these people.
And then strangers can come to your house in many states called ballot harvesting and pick up your ballot and take it.
This has led to accusations in places like old folks' homes or memory care facilities where people do not know that their ballots are being taken from them by aides and filled out and returned.
And, you know, if an election is close, so for example, my law firm right now has been working this month in December with a campaign for attorney general in Arizona, Abe Hamade.
The margin in his race, which is still being contested and is in an automatic recount, is like about 500-something votes.
So if you have a few loose votes here and there in a state, that adds up to the margin.
And so, you know, those are the kinds of issues that we have to be focusing, I think, 10 times the resources on that issue as we are.
Maricopa County had problems in the 2020 election with machines not reading the ballots and signatures not being read correctly and all of that.
And yet they did nothing to improve it.
In fact, they knew in Maricopa County that Republicans are more likely to vote in person.
I think this is a bad idea, Republicans, but Republicans are more likely to vote in person on Election Day.
But what does that tell you?
Long lines on Election Day are only Republicans.
So if there are long lines, people will leave.
If the machines don't work, people will leave and there will be long lines.
If they see bags of ballots in a room that are uncounted and untended, they will think that their vote will not count.
And all of this degrades a functioning democratic system.
And so, what I would do to fix that is I would take the evidence that my firm gathered over several days in the midterm election where I was working for Kerry Lake at that time and side by side with RNC lawyers.
And we went and interviewed a lot of witnesses and we got their statements.
I would file a lawsuit over that and make sure that the next election is secure.
Now, some people say, Harmee, you know, that's weak.
Why can't you fix the last election?
I mean, I could go into that.
There's all kinds of laws and jurisprudence, you know, dating back centuries as to the time limits and what you can do about an existing election.
So we got to wake up and smell the coffee and know that this will happen in the next election in Maricopa County unless we take action to fix it now.
Now, Arizona does have a Republican legislature, and so I hope that they pass some strong election integrity measures and they can persuade or have enough of the majority that the governor has to let it go through.
So we'll see what happens.
Yeah.
Well, I sure like Kerry Lake as a candidate.
I liked your fighting spirit.
Now, you're running for the leadership of the RNC, which is the Republican National Committee.
Most of our viewers are Canadians.
So we know what Republicans are, but what is the organization, the National Committee?
What are its powers?
Is it mainly a fundraising and spending agency?
Is it a candidate recruitment arm?
If you become the leader of the RNC, which is, I think, your goal, what does that mean?
Well, it is all of the things that you mentioned, if it is doing its job correctly.
It is a fundraising and spending arm that transfers money to states, that transfers money to candidates, that shares fundraising goals and funds with other fundraising committees, NRSC, NRCC.
There are joint fundraising agreements sometimes and profit sharing agreements.
And, you know, but it's so much more than that, or it should be.
The Democratic Party interferes in our primaries with dark money and with sort of strategies.
And we don't do that on our own side as sort of help with candidate selection.
And I think we need to be doing that more.
We've seen that if Democrats do it in our primaries and we don't do it, then we're letting Democrats define who our candidates are.
And that leads to loss, obviously.
The Republican Party should be the clear messaging leader in the party.
As we all know, politicians have their own agendas and special interests and deals they have to cut.
The Republican Party doesn't have to cut deals.
We have a primary, sorry, we have a platform that is developed every four years at our national convention.
Because of COVID, we did not update that during the 2020 election, unfortunately.
We had maintained the same platform from 2016, but in 2024, absent some other foreign virus shutting down our government, we will be having a platform discussion.
And that will be talking about the conservative ideals.
These are the activists of the party.
So these are conservative ideals.
And the party needs to strongly stand behind the party platform and have clear and positive goals.
I'm afraid over the last few years, we've just been constantly in cycles of reacting to Democrats.
And certainly the last two years, it's all been reacting, letting them set the agenda.
And we sort of have our weak talking points.
And they don't persuade the voters.
We just saw that in the midterm election.
So I want to see a return to a more positive vision of the future.
What can Republicans do for you differently than the Democrats?
I think Americans are all suffering under this cultural Marxism the liberals are pushing.
I think if we were clear about what we offered, we could pick up more independent votes and even some Democrat votes.
And you really need that to form a winning coalition in this country.
And so I think there's some wasteful spending at the RNC.
I know that.
I think that our priorities are out of whack.
And I think that, frankly, really the same people have run the RNC for the last 12 years.
And America's moved on.
It's 2022 right now.
It's going to be 2024 when the next national election happens.
We cannot be using 1990s methods and talking points to elect people.
Our party right now is a very DC-oriented, top-down, consultant-driven, I would say corrupt consultant-driven outfit.
People who get paid, whether we win or lose, people who make money from fundraising, whether it's effective or not, the message chain.
I'd like to change that more to a grassroots type effort.
I want to hear more from the Americans who care about the future of our country.
And so that's my vision.
I mean, there's so many things.
I'm excited about it.
I'd love to make our party more effective, more in touch with the voters who we asked to send their small and large checks in.
And I want those politicians who we support to be more in touch with those voters.
And I think there's a big disconnect right now.
The party is divided with recent elections.
We really need to unite around a winning agenda for 2024 for the future of our country.
Well, I think that's a very appealing message.
How does the vote work?
Who gets to vote for the leader of the RNC?
When is it?
Is it just other state committee members?
I don't know the structure.
When will we know?
And how do you campaign?
Is it just a small number of people who choose?
It's a very small number of people who choose.
It's 168 people who choose out of the whole country of 300 million people plus.
Each state and the six territories, Puerto Rico and Guam and the others, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Marianas Islands, American Samoa, these have three members each to the RNC, the state chairman or territory chairman, the national committee man, and the national committee woman.
I'm the national committee woman from California, and I am one of the 168 members.
And so when Ronna Romney McDaniel became the chair, she was the Michigan chairman of the Michigan GOP, and she's not had a contested election, believe it or not.
So she's been elected for three cycles unopposed.
And so now she's seeking her fourth term.
And I believe three cycles of not winning elections is enough.
And so, you know, I would say five cycles because we had two Georgia runoffs that we lost as well.
And so around the country, there's a huge groundswell to upgrade the RNC.
But some of our members are not hearing that.
So it is a one-to-one conversation with each of them to try to persuade them as to why we need to improve and change the RNC.
And so, you know, that's it.
I'll be taking a step back if I win this from my law practice and my nonprofit for two years.
And my colleagues will continue to run those while I focus on turning around the National Party.
Well, it's very exciting.
And I can imagine all the conversations and the phone calls and the meetings.
If there's just 84 people you need to convince in addition to yourself, that is a heck of an exciting process.
I certainly hope you win.
I think you'll bring legal smarts and a modern approach to campaigning because although I'm a Canadian and of course, I'm not a voter in the United States, what happens in America has a huge effect on Canada.
And the more you embrace freedom and prosperity, the more we benefit as well.
Harmon, it's been great spending so much time with you.
I know you're so busy.
I'm actually amazed you were able to pull yourself away to talk to us at such length.
Thanks for your great work for Rebel News, for fighting for freedom for everyone.
And I hope you succeed and become RNC chair.
Thank you so much.
And it's an honor to represent people like you who support freedom anywhere in the world.