A (4:36)

Well, and I want to thank you and compliment you because the constitutional privilege, the way you explained it was really helpful. Cause I was just curious how it got to a floor vote so quickly. It really did make this dead on arrival. And Senator, you changed the national conversation on this impeachment overnight, almost instantaneously. Where it went from vote counting to should this even be happening at all whatsoever. And you challenged the legitimacy of it, which was so desperately needed because I think that too many Republicans were legitimizing something that really isn't an impeachment. The founders never thought impeachment should be for private citizens. It should be for current civil office holders. And, and you said something in your speech, Senator, that I want to zero in on, where you said, donald Trump is really all that keeps the Democrats together. It's as if they wanna just keep on bringing him up. And I thought that was a really important point. And so do you view this then as nothing more than just an excuse not to govern? Almost an excuse to keep their rank and file happy and try and almost redo an election that they were happy with the outcome of?

B (5:41)

I think so. And I think also it's based on a conclusion that no one's even really discussed fairly. So they make the conclusion. If you watch any of these left wing news channels, which is most of them, they say President Trump incited a violent insurrection. Well, that's a wild and crazy conclusion, really. A president incited a violent insurrection of the country. What, we had a civil war. When did this happen? But the thing is, is that that is a conclusion for which there's been no discussion of. They just draw the conclusion. So what did the president do to incite violence? He said, go fight for your country. Those are the language they put in there that this is a terrible thing that he said. I asked him on the Senate floor, what Democrat, raise your hand if you've never given a speech where you said, go fight to take back your country or go fight for your country or go fight for this principle. You know, fighting is a figurative word. And it's funny, most of the time we don't go on to explain peacefully, but the President actually took the time to say peacefully and he said, let your voices be heard. He didn't say, go down there with pitchforks or guns and attack them. But the thing is, if the president's going to be held responsible in a ridiculous, over the top, unfair way, shouldn't we at least look at Democrats language? And this was a big part of what I wanted to bring forward. And even many of the media still haven't, haven't realized this. I asked whether we should impeach Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris has been giving bail money to people who have been violently burning our city. She's advocated for this freedom fund and she wants to give them money to get out of jail after they try to throw Molokov cocktails at policemen, after they burn our cities. She wants to help them get out of jail. And some very violent people use that fund to get out of jail in Minnesota. But would we call for impeaching her? I would criticize her, but I would never call for impeaching her, because that would be ridiculous. But the other side doesn't wanna use the same kind of. Or apply the same kind of standard to their people.

A (7:46)

That's really well said. So, Senator, I want to focus on something that I think is brewing that you have been fighting against. Metaphorically, of course, Senator. Now, when I say this word, I always have to stop myself, or else I'm afraid I'm gonna be accused. No, seriously. And it actually ties to this question, which is, I think that the Democrats and some of the establishment Republicans are licking their chops because they see a new Patriot act opportunity to spy on American citizens. Senator, you really kind of. In my first memory of your political career in the Senate, you filibustered the potential drone reconnaissance of Americans. I might be misremembering it, but it was something of that nature. You've been speaking about the threat of the federal government being able to spy on American citizens. Well, now we have. They're not hiding it anymore. They're saying that even libertarians could potentially be spied on. That's John Brennan's words, not my own. Senator, can you talk about how dangerous this is and why we must stand up against it early? Because a new Patriot act, it could fundamentally change the country altogether.

B (8:55)

Yeah. Beware what they slip in when they start talking about terrorism. You know, after 9 11, they said, we have to go after the terrorists. And my first reaction was, I'm fine going after these foreign terrorists. And I want you to spy on them, snoop on them, whatever you need to do. But the people who attacked us on 911 need to be punished. But then I found out that their plan, and my dad was big on exposing this, they'd had this plan, the Patriot act, had been written for 10 years before they sprung it on us. They were looking for an excuse. Remember Rahm Emanuel saying, let no crisis be wasted? In times of crisis, when people are actually trying to do the right thing, what happens is your civil liberties are eroded and slip away. Times of war, times of crisis. But then it's hard to get them back. So they said, we have to spy on these people who might attack us. But then it turns out they were spying on Americans, not just a few Americans, not Americans who they were suspicious of that might have been calling a foreign terrorist. No, every American. So every American's phone call was being monitored. This is what Edward Snowden revealed. He revealed that Verizon had a court order from the government to look at all Verizon cell phone calls at&t presumably had the same thing. So did every cell phone company. So they use something against terrorism to spy on all of us. So now what are they saying? They're saying, well, we've got domestic terrorism. There's, we've had this attack on the Capitol. We need to go after domestic terrorists. And you're like, well, a lot of people will say, well, you're right, there's violence and we need to get these violent people. The person who killed the policeman, I'm all for you. Yes, we should. The guy who killed the Capitol Hill policeman should go to jail forever. You know, I mean, that's a terrible crime. But the thing is, is then you start to think, who are these people that they're going to define as domestic terrorists? You know, Michael McVeigh or whatever the guy's name, the Oklahoma bomb, Timothy McVeigh.

A (10:45)

Yeah.

B (10:47)

Punish these people. But then they start to define, well, you know what, if you're someone who believes that there might have been election fraud, that is something that could provoke people and people who think that the last election wasn't fair, you know, these people could be dangerous. So we can't let anybody on television who says they doubt the election. Although this is kind of new because you remember Hillary Clinton kept saying that the election against her was hijacked. She was saying that up until probably a couple of weeks ago that the election where she lost was unfair and hijacked and Trump was illegitimate. The Russians got Trump in, so it was fine for four years against Trump, but now if there's new legislation, beware what it's gonna include. You actually have Democrats saying, well, you know, the alien and sedition acts that John Adams put in that for most of our history, Americans have been taught how horrendous this was to free speech. They put congressmen in jail for speech. It was terrible. It's been universally condemned. There's actually people on the left writing so called serious essays saying while we do, we can't really have completely free speech because there might be misinformation, you know, Katie Kirk saying now that some of us may need to go to debrief and be deprogrammed. And I'm hoping you at least get soma. I'm not going if there's no soma, I mean, if you don't get an opiate or something, if you gotta go to a camp without opiates, I mean, who wants to go to that kind of camp, you know? And I'm just joking, everyone. I'm not really for that. But the thing is, really, that's what they're talking about. They're actually talking about that some of us need to be deprogrammed because we might spread disinformation. This is very, very dangerous. But it's not brand new. Some of it started with this climate stuff. The climate alarmist started this maybe 10 years ago. And now they've made it so universal that there are programs that already won't have you on. If you say, well, no, I don't think the world's gonna end in 10 years. I think there might be some geologic forces, there might be some historical eon long forces that have to do with climate as well. It's not just man, it could be nature as well. Oh, no, you're a denier and you might be dangerous. This is, you know, it may sound like a dystopian novel, but I am concerned about the legislation that comes. And your viewers should too. We should watch people, because under the guise of something they say is going to protect us, guess what? We might just be losing our liberty.

A (13:13)

I totally agree. And we've been warning against this. So final question is, what do you think the likelihood of that is? Are you starting to see chatter in the Senate? Are you starting to see legislation possibly be introduced? Because it seems that they've been wanting the surveillance state for quite some time. They want to expand it, they want to potentially use it for political purposes, and they want to be able to strengthen their political power. And. And then what could people do to possibly stand up against something like that?

B (13:40)

By all means, call your legislators, email them, do what you can to let them know you're worried. The more we talk about it on podcasts and shows like this, the more chance we have of fighting back. But don't be naive to think that it just won't happen. It very well could happen. And I think we do need to fight. We need to push up. Can you put a chiron below and say every time I say fight or any kind of Marshall term that I'm really. Not to be taken literally, but figuratively. All right, because I'm afraid I can get on their list too. You know what happens, you know? Well, no, it's an insane world. It's an insane world that we're living in and somebody's gotta push back.

A (14:20)

Well, Senator, we joke around about that, but then we're worried it's actually really serious. Cuz all we could do is joke about it because of how scary it is. Because I say a lot, we gotta fight for America. We're in a culture war now. I'm thinking to myself, is this now all of a sudden someone gonna get some sort of FISA warrant because of that? You know.

B (14:39)

But I think it's also important that when we push back, we talk about Democrat language. Cuz there's a lot of very specific inciting language. For example, the Maxine Waters by getting a crowd of people going into restaurants, mobbing people. That was, you know, specific exhortations. Her actual quote is even worse than what I just said. Cory Booker said, get up in their face. Bernie Sanders and others have said the health care plan is. The Republican health care plan is you get sick and then you die. These are things that actually did incite violence. All of the violence in our cities. You got that crazy mayor out in Seattle saying, oh, you know, half of our city's burning and they're taking over blocks of their city and they have anarchy. And she says, oh, it's just the summer of love. Well, did she incite or encourage those people by saying we're not going to send the police after you because we're just going to treat this as a summer of love? I think the more we mention the hypocrisy, the more people scratch their head. Because if violence, if somehow people on the right who encourage people to do something they're going to define as violence. What about the left? And so eventually saner heads will be. And there are some good people. There are some good people from the left. Glenn Greenwald's one who is very, who I think is very worried about civil liberties. And he's been talking about this and not in a Republican, Democrat way. He talks about it in that either party could take away your liberty and promise you that, oh, we're going after terrorism and then it takes you a while and then before you figure it out, you've been labeled the terrorist that they're going after.

A (16:17)

I totally agree. It's very scary. Well, Senator, thank you for your courage and I think we're gonna be talking again. Cuz my guess is that one of these surveillance bills is gonna be popping up very soon in the Senate, especially with the new leadership and you getting out in front of it and getting our other Republican colleagues, hopefully not to support. It is super important. There's other things I wanna talk to you about. I just wanna thank you. One last thing. Thank you for protecting the filibuster bill. Because when you fought to keep the filibuster in place under Trump when it was tempting, look how happy we are right now. It's a safeguard for liberty. So I wanna thank you for that. You're one of the few senators that really spoke out against it and Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are now doing the right thing, thankfully. And so that's gonna hopefully slow down the process a little bit and stop their totalitarian impulses. So, Senator, thank you so much. We really appreciate it. And thanks for all you do for thanks so much for listening, everybody. If you want to get involved with Turning Point USA, go to tpusa.com, email us your questions. As always, freedom at charliekirk. Com. Thank you so much for listening. And again, if you'd like to support us, go to charliekirk. Com Support thanks so much. God bless.