Speaker 1: Hey, Michael, just wanted to summarize the minutes from the
Speaker 1: emergency Goober meeting we just had about the potential for
Speaker 1: airing the view live. Turns out none of us really
Speaker 1: care about the content of your show. If we cared
Speaker 1: about the content, we probably would have stopped listening a
Speaker 1: long time ago.
Speaker 2: So you do you.
Speaker 3: If we really cared about the content, we would have
Speaker 3: stopped listening a long time ago. You're listening to the content,
Speaker 3: so you don't care about the content, so therefore.
Speaker 2: We can just do whatever we down. Well, please, right, Okay,
Speaker 2: I just want to make sure I.
Speaker 3: Understood the logic of the dumb ass freezing his ass off.
Speaker 3: An Alaska lawyer had to say about listening to the content.
Speaker 3: Jimney Christmas.
Speaker 4: He's listening so he doesn't have to listen.
Speaker 3: Right, And he's listening because he doesn't care, right, Yeah,
Speaker 3: because he's soache that he just we we're so bad.
Speaker 2: We make him feel good. That's what we do.
Speaker 3: On Monday, the Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon send a
Speaker 3: letter to Harvard University. Dear doctor Garber, the federal government
Speaker 3: has a sacred responsibility to be a wise and important
Speaker 3: steward of American taxpayer dollars. Harvard University, despite amassing a
Speaker 3: largely tax free fifty three point two billion dollar endowment
Speaker 3: larger than the GDP of more than one hundred countries,
Speaker 3: receives billions of dollars of taxpayer largest every year. Receiving
Speaker 3: such taxpayer funds is a privilege, not a right. Yet
Speaker 3: instead of using these funds to advance the education of
Speaker 3: its students, Harvard is engaging in a systemic pattern of
Speaker 3: violating federal law. Where do many of these air quotes
Speaker 3: here students come from? Who are they? How do they
Speaker 3: get into Harvard or even into our country? And why
Speaker 3: is there so much hate? In all caps the word hate.
Speaker 3: These are questions that must be answered, among many more.
Speaker 3: But the biggest question of all is why will Harvard
Speaker 3: not give straightforward answers to the American public. Harvard University,
Speaker 3: she writes, has made a mockery of this country's higher
Speaker 3: education system. It has invited foreign students who engage in
Speaker 3: violent behavior and show contempt for the United States of
Speaker 3: America to its campus. In every way, Harvard has failed
Speaker 3: to abide by its legal obligations, its ethical in fiduciary duties,
Speaker 3: its transparency, responsibilities and any semblance of academic rigor. It
Speaker 3: had scrapped standardized testing requirements and a normalized grading system.
Speaker 3: This year, Harvard was forced to adopt an embarrassing remedial
Speaker 3: math program for undergraduates. Why is it, we ask that
Speaker 3: Harvard has to teach simple and basic mathematics when it
Speaker 3: is supposedly so hard to get into this acclaimed university.
Speaker 3: Who's getting you in under such low standard when others
Speaker 3: with fabulous grades? Did Trump write this letter with fabulous
Speaker 3: grades and a great understanding of the highest levels of
Speaker 3: mathematics are being rejected? I don't I don't want to
Speaker 3: say too much about the content letter yet, I would
Speaker 3: just say this as a grammar punctuation kind of sentence structure, Nazi,
Speaker 3: this is a.
Speaker 2: Horribly written letter. Yeah.
Speaker 5: As I'm looking for the letter to post to Michael
Speaker 5: saysco here dot com, I'm finding so many not spoof sites,
Speaker 5: but so many people doing with that red pen and
Speaker 5: English teacher.
Speaker 4: Which just like I'm doing in my head as I'm
Speaker 4: reading exactly.
Speaker 5: Yeah, things are circled and then there's the you know,
Speaker 5: misspellings and punctuation, and yeah, it's it's it's it's all
Speaker 5: over the place.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and some of it just doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 3: But nonetheless, the letter continues, Harvard has embroiled in humiliating
Speaker 3: plagiarisms exposed clearly and plainly in the media with respect
Speaker 3: to your then university president, who was an embarrassment to
Speaker 3: our nation. Much of you know, because again, now that
Speaker 3: I'm thinking about that, even more dragon, why is the
Speaker 3: word nation capitalized? Much of Harvard's hateful discrimination was revealed
Speaker 3: last year by the great work of Congresswoman Elise Stefani
Speaker 3: and her committee. As if it were trying to embarrass
Speaker 3: itself even further, Harvard hired failed mayor's Bill de Blasio
Speaker 3: and Lloyd Lightfoot, perhaps the worst mayors everage to preside
Speaker 3: over major cities in our country's history, to supposedly teach
Speaker 3: leadership at their school of Public Health. This is like
Speaker 3: hiring the captain of the Titanic to teach navigation to
Speaker 3: future captains of the sea.
Speaker 2: This really does like it was dictated by Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: This incomprehensible and I'm going to get to a point
Speaker 3: about this in the minute.
Speaker 2: I just want you to hear the letter.
Speaker 3: This incomprehensible failure becomes more understandable after reviewing Harvard's management.
Speaker 3: The Harvard Corporation, which is supposedly to competently and professionally
Speaker 3: manage Harvard's vast academic, financial, and physical resources, is run
Speaker 3: by strongly left leaning political appointee Penny Pritzker. By the way,
Speaker 3: I think a relative or maybe even the wife of
Speaker 3: Governor Pritzker of Illinois, a Democrat operative who.
Speaker 6: Is CATASTROPHI I do mean catastrafi running the institution in
Speaker 6: a totally chaotic way.
Speaker 3: Harvard alumnus and highly successful hedge fund manager Bill Ackman
Speaker 3: noted that under her leadership, Harvard has become a political
Speaker 3: advocacy organization for one party. Agman has called for the
Speaker 3: resignation of Pritzker, concluding that the mismanagement here is Penny
Speaker 3: Pritzker and noting that any serious corporation would have removed
Speaker 3: her after a litany of recent failings and the fact that,
Speaker 3: incredibly quote, Harvard is not in a good financial position.
Speaker 3: According to Atman, one of the world's foremost financed experts,
Speaker 3: Harvard's so called fifty three billion dollar endowment is massively
Speaker 3: overstated as far as what it's really worth, and Harvard
Speaker 3: has irresponsibly taken out eight billion dollars in debt. If
Speaker 3: this is true, she writes, it is concerning evidence of
Speaker 3: Harvard's disastrous mismanagement, indicating an urgent need for massive reform,
Speaker 3: not continued taxpayer investment. If Harvard prefers not to change,
Speaker 3: then Harvard should have no problem using its overflowing of
Speaker 3: endowment to fund its blow to bureaucracy. At its best,
Speaker 3: a university should fulfill the highest ideals of our.
Speaker 2: Nation and enlighten the thousands.
Speaker 3: Of hopeful students who walk through this magnificence gate magnificent gates.
Speaker 3: But Harvard has betrayed this ideal. Bob, you know, I'm
Speaker 3: getting bored with this letter. They continue, the administration have
Speaker 3: previously been willing to maintain federal funding to Harvard so
Speaker 3: long as Harvard committed to complying with long settled federal law,
Speaker 3: including to protect and promote student welfare and the landmark
Speaker 3: decision of the Supreme Court against racial preferencing.
Speaker 2: The proposed common Sense reforms.
Speaker 3: Which the Administration remains committed to, include a return to
Speaker 3: merit based admissions and hiring, and into unlawful programs that
Speaker 3: promote crude identity stereotypes, disciplinary reform, and consistent accountability, including
Speaker 3: for student groups, cooperation with law enforcement and reporting, compliance
Speaker 3: with the Department of Ed, the Department of Homeland Security,
Speaker 3: and others. And it just kills on and on and on. Well,
Speaker 3: if they want to cut off funding to Harvard, a
Speaker 3: private institution, you can do that. Harvard's just say grantee,
Speaker 3: they just receive. They make applications for grants, just like
Speaker 3: CU Boulder makes applications for grants, or makes applications for grants,
Speaker 3: or Podunk University in Podunk State makes applications for grants.
Speaker 3: It's not an entitlement, it's not a requirement. And if
Speaker 3: there's proof or there's evidence that they are not in
Speaker 3: compliance with the grants, then you can rescind the grant,
Speaker 3: or you can refuse to grant any more grants. The
Speaker 3: whole letter thing, to me seems to be a whole
Speaker 3: lot of grand standing. And there's something else that bugs
Speaker 3: me now I watched. In fact, I think I may
Speaker 3: have reposted. I did repost. This is in my Twitter
Speaker 3: feed of a student at Columbia who's wearing a cafe
Speaker 3: who is vandalizing. I don't know whether it's the library
Speaker 3: or I'm sorry, the library, the library or the student union.
Speaker 3: But they're actively engaged while being filmed. They're actively engaged
Speaker 3: in vandalism. Now that's a crime. That student ought to
Speaker 3: be expelled. If that is a foreign student on a
Speaker 3: foreign visa, on a foreign student visa, then the State
Speaker 3: Department has the unequivocal, unassailable right to revoke that visa
Speaker 3: with about let me be very clear here, with or
Speaker 3: without a hearing, in other words, without any due process.
Speaker 3: We see you engaged in violence. Now, whether the state
Speaker 3: or the FEDS or local police department decides to arrest
Speaker 3: you and file charges.
Speaker 2: That's up to them.
Speaker 3: But that has nothing to do with the State Department
Speaker 3: revoking the visa. They can just look at your actions
Speaker 3: and of their own accord, because that visa does not
Speaker 3: attach that visa does not attach any due process rights
Speaker 3: to that student. Now, the same is true for Harvard.
Speaker 3: If now, I want to be very clear here about
Speaker 3: something very clear about something. You know that I'm pretty
Speaker 3: much a Zionist. I fully support Israel. I've got a
Speaker 3: lot of Jewish friends. I support the state of Israel.
Speaker 3: I support Jews having their own state. But I also
Speaker 3: support the right of people to go out and shout
Speaker 3: anti Semitic tropes, to actually not to engage in physical
Speaker 3: anti semitism. You can't go beat up Jews because they're
Speaker 3: Jews anymore that you can go beat up white people
Speaker 3: because they're white, anymore. That you can beat up dumb
Speaker 3: people because they're dumb. That's assault and battery. That's a
Speaker 3: criminal violation. But if I want to engage in anti
Speaker 3: Semitic propaganda, anti Semitic statements, then the First Amendment allows
Speaker 3: me to do that, even if I'm here on a
Speaker 3: student visa. Now, the State Department may not approve of
Speaker 3: the anti Semitic statements, and they could revoke my visa
Speaker 3: because that visa, again is a privilege, not a right.
Speaker 3: The reason I point that out is I'm confused by
Speaker 3: the letter. Are you upset about Harvard because they're allowing
Speaker 3: students to protest against Israel. Now, as long as they're
Speaker 3: doing the protests lawfully, they can do that. Now if
Speaker 3: they're engaged in violence, or they're vandalizing, or they're doing
Speaker 3: something else that's a violation of the rules, then you
Speaker 3: can do that. So there's a very fine distinction here
Speaker 3: between protests, anti Semitism, and criminality. I think all of
Speaker 3: this has been conflated, and I think Linda McMahon has
Speaker 3: actually kind of made a fool of herself with this letter.
Speaker 3: But having said all of that, if indeed they wanted
Speaker 3: to revoke the tax exempt status of Harvard University, guess what,
Speaker 3: I think they have the right to do. That tax
Speaker 3: exempt status is not something that once given, remains forever
Speaker 3: and you can't take it away. You actually can take
Speaker 3: it away. And this idea that you can't do it,
Speaker 3: or that it's wrong or I mean, however you want
Speaker 3: to phrase it, I really don't get. But I also
Speaker 3: don't get why we can't be a little more specific
Speaker 3: about what's going on with Harvard. And if indeed you
Speaker 3: want to revoke a five O one C three status
Speaker 3: for violating the tax laws by perhaps engaging in, oh
Speaker 3: I don't know, the prohibit activities like engaging in outright politics,
Speaker 3: then do it. So in that regard, Trump is right.
Speaker 3: I think Linda McMahon's letter m probably should have somebody
Speaker 3: that had a I don't know, maybe a basic understanding
Speaker 3: of the English language and punctuation and how they compose
Speaker 3: a letter. Maybe review it before you send it to Harvard,
Speaker 3: of all places.
Speaker 2: But Trump.
Speaker 5: You can see that letter at Michael says go here
Speaker 5: dot com, and you can see those having a.
Speaker 4: Little bit of fun with that. Michael says, go here
Speaker 4: dot com.
Speaker 3: So, Harvard University, whatever the amount is, Bill Agman, you
Speaker 3: say it's mismanaged. I don't know, but the the generally
Speaker 3: accepted figure is somewhere between an endowment of between fifty
Speaker 3: and fifty three billion dollars.
Speaker 2: Now, they do have.
Speaker 3: An unaccountable corporate board because they don't have shareholders. It
Speaker 3: functions Harvard does. It functions less like an institution of
Speaker 3: higher learning. It actually functions more like a hedge fund,
Speaker 3: with the school as its public relations are. Its continued
Speaker 3: status as a five oh one C three public charity
Speaker 3: does seem a little incongruous, and it does seem a
Speaker 3: little indefensible. When any elite institution fails to uphold the
Speaker 3: most basic principles of civil rights, embraces in systemic discrimination,
Speaker 3: and then conceals all of those wrongdoings beneath the veil
Speaker 3: of its its academic prestige, it really does forfeit the
Speaker 3: privileges that come with taxpayer substance does they You're not
Speaker 3: entitled to those subsidies.
Speaker 2: You're not in you're not entitled to those grants.
Speaker 3: The Internal Revenue Service has both the authority, and I
Speaker 3: would argue the obligation to revoke a tax exempt status
Speaker 3: if they are violating the the box within you getting
Speaker 3: a fight. Anyone, anyone in this audience who's ever established
Speaker 3: a true Fible one C three charity knows that when
Speaker 3: you fill out your nine to ninety, when you go
Speaker 3: through the application process, you you agree to adhere to
Speaker 3: certain standards and certain restrictions, and that if you don't
Speaker 3: do that, then that Fible one C three status can
Speaker 3: be revoked. And in this case, if you want to
Speaker 3: make your point with Harvard, just quit writing stupid, dumbass
Speaker 3: letters and revoke their FIVELE one C three status. Now
Speaker 3: that's not a partisan statement, it's actually legal precedent. In
Speaker 3: nineteen eighty three, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
Speaker 3: Internal Revenue Services revocation of the five O one C
Speaker 3: three status the tax exempt status of Bob Jones University.
Speaker 3: Why because if it's racially discriminatory policies, even though those
Speaker 3: even though their policies were nominally based on sincerely held beliefs.
Speaker 3: You can engage in those discriminatory policies, but you can't
Speaker 3: at the same time have five ON one C three status.
Speaker 3: In other words, if you want to be a religious
Speaker 3: institution like Bob Jones University and you've got to meet
Speaker 3: all these particular religious requirements, okay, then go do that,
Speaker 3: but don't ask the taxpayers to subsidize you by giving
Speaker 3: you a tax exempt status. And the Supreme Court said
Speaker 3: exactly right, exactly what they said, the principle established was
Speaker 3: very clear discrimination even when it's quote in a private
Speaker 3: autonomous institution is incompatible with the public interests that would
Speaker 3: justify or permit permit is the right verb tax exemption.
Speaker 3: Harvard is not any more exempt from that standard than
Speaker 3: was Bob Jones University, because Harvard is not above the
Speaker 3: law and Harvard is not above any sort of accountability.
Speaker 3: So let's think about the facts that might justify revoking
Speaker 3: Harvard's FIBER one C three status. And then, as ask
Speaker 3: ourselves this question, if you really are pissed off at Harvard,
Speaker 3: and they really have violated the tenets of their five
Speaker 3: O one C three status, then why not just revoke it?
Speaker 3: Why are you writing stupid.
Speaker 7: Letters Michael, which Poe? Don't you talking about the one
Speaker 7: in Sage Township or the one in Redland Township, both
Speaker 7: of which are in Michigan and Ruttling.
Speaker 3: Yeah, dunk, bo dunk. So let's think about the facts
Speaker 3: of what's going on at Harvard. So go all the
Speaker 3: way back to the attacks by the Palestinians by Hamas
Speaker 3: back in October of twenty twenty three. Jewish students at
Speaker 3: Harvard are subjected to a a climate of hostility and intimidation.
Speaker 3: Even according to Harvard's own task force, students started reporting
Speaker 3: that they had to hide the religious identity. Some feared
Speaker 3: retaliation for just expressing moderate mainstream political views. So in
Speaker 3: the university, private or public doesn't mean the difference to me.
Speaker 3: Where you're committed to free inquiry, that should be at
Speaker 3: least a cause for alarm. That should that's going to
Speaker 3: at least draw the attention of regulators, in this case
Speaker 3: the Internal Revenue Service. But instead Harvard's response was very
Speaker 3: procedural and cosmetic. Well, this form a task force, let's
Speaker 3: have some listening sessions, let's just do something that's symbolic.
Speaker 3: All of which was just trying to evade the real issue.
Speaker 3: So Jewish students were left in that to navigate this
Speaker 3: climate of exclusion because the faculty, in the stat will,
Speaker 3: the administration, the Harvard administration, they were just preoccupied with
Speaker 3: their dei orthodoxy. It's it is an irony that's lost
Speaker 3: on nobody that the same institution that was found to
Speaker 3: be discriminating against Asian American applicants in defiance of the
Speaker 3: Constitution of the Supreme Court continues to elevate and use
Speaker 3: race in it hiring decisions. That alone that I don't
Speaker 3: have to go any further, That alone is enough to
Speaker 3: revoke their five to one three status, which makes the question,
Speaker 3: then why not? Then you had the investigation into the
Speaker 3: Harvard Law Review selection practices that underscored that very contradiction.
Speaker 3: They were actually discriminating against Asian Americans. Merit becomes subordinated ideology.
Speaker 3: It's no longer a meritocracy. Excellence gets filtered through the
Speaker 3: lens of racism.
Speaker 2: That's not inclusion.
Speaker 3: The color blind principles that underpin the Civil Rights Act
Speaker 3: have been displaced by their bureaucratized concept of equity. And
Speaker 3: I know people will want to talk about how Harvard
Speaker 3: is trying to make reforms. The question is whether Harvard
Speaker 3: at this moment qualifies for the extraordinary benefit of a
Speaker 3: tax exemption, And I think the answer is that they
Speaker 3: do not.
Speaker 2: The I R S is not in.
Speaker 3: The business of subsidizing civil rights violators hoping that maybe
Speaker 3: in the future they're going to reform.
Speaker 2: Do you think if it was do you.
Speaker 3: Think that if this were a conservative five oh one
Speaker 3: C three engage in whatever activity it might be, but
Speaker 3: lawful activity was doing this kind of stuff, that the
Speaker 3: RS would waste one second in at least starting the
Speaker 3: process to revoke their five oh one C three status.
Speaker 3: Of course they wouldn't. And then when you think about
Speaker 3: the fifty plus plus billion dollar endowment, how can Harvard
Speaker 3: claim that it's by necessity designated a charity as at
Speaker 3: least one thing the letter points out that was accurate.
Speaker 3: They have assets that surpassed the gross domestic product of
Speaker 3: one hundred countries or more, and the Harvard Corporation generates
Speaker 3: annually turns into billions. And it's so much so that
Speaker 3: the Harvard Corporation has professional investors, and those professional investors
Speaker 3: get paid the equivalent of what many Wall Street executives
Speaker 3: get paid, and then that returns an inordinate amount of
Speaker 3: money back to the administrative bureaucracy of Harvard itself. It's
Speaker 3: not an Harvard's not a charity, it's an empire. But
Speaker 3: their insistence on institutional autonomy leave us alone, grantest the
Speaker 3: tax exempt status will leave us alone is particularly disgusting
Speaker 3: when rebuffing the calls by the Department of ed or
Speaker 3: by the administration or anybody else, even even me, that
Speaker 3: you need to protect Jewish students from physical harassment. Need
Speaker 3: you can allow anti Semitic language and speeches on your campus,
Speaker 3: and I'll defend those till the cows come home, as
Speaker 3: long as it doesn't spill over into violence or intimidation
Speaker 3: or actual discrimination against Jews. If Harvard is private when
Speaker 3: it comes to oversight, it should be private when it
Speaker 3: comes to taxation. We can't accept the privileges of a
Speaker 3: taxpayer subsidy while rejecting the responsibilities of getting that taxpayer subsidy.
Speaker 3: Otherwise you got double standard that privilege that privileges elite
Speaker 3: institutions over the Constitution. Now, the legal basis for revoking
Speaker 3: five O one C. Three is not just something that
Speaker 3: you can make up out of ten air, you've got
Speaker 3: to have some reasons for doing it. Under Section five
Speaker 3: O one C three, the Internal Revenue Service is empowered
Speaker 3: to revoke the tax exempt status of any institution, any
Speaker 3: organization that violates public policy, including civil rights statutes. Go
Speaker 3: back to the Bob Jones case, where the Supreme Court
Speaker 3: said that the government has a quote fundamental overwriting interest
Speaker 3: in eradicating racial discrimination and education that substantially outweighs whatever
Speaker 3: burden denial of tax benefits places on the university's exercise
Speaker 3: of religious beliefs. Now, if that applies to religious doctrine,
Speaker 3: it certainly applies to Harvard's secular dogma. Now some will
Speaker 3: argue you that if you revoke Harvard's tax exempt status,
Speaker 3: you're politicizing the tax code. Well that's a total red herring.
Speaker 3: The high horss is already politicized because it favors progressive
Speaker 3: organizations progressive causes. We know that from the lowest learner cases.
Speaker 3: It grants exemptions to countless left wing NGOs that engage
Speaker 3: in advocacy in violation of the tax tax exempt status
Speaker 3: that actually that advocacy is electioneering. In my opinion, the
Speaker 3: IRS turned a complete blind eye to flagrant abuses by
Speaker 3: activists or foundations that indoctrinate and don't educate. The only
Speaker 3: novelty in Trump's proposal is the idea that elite institutions
Speaker 3: ought to be held to the same standard as their
Speaker 3: less pedigree counterparts, the Podux of the world. Now, I
Speaker 3: know they're going to invoke academic freedom as if somehow
Speaker 3: that principle absolves the university of all their other legal obligations.
Speaker 3: But academic freedom is not a license for institutional impunity.
Speaker 3: Academic freedom doesn't mean that you can just go violate
Speaker 3: whatever rules, regulations, policies, or statutes that exist that preclude
Speaker 3: the activity or prohibit the activity that you're engaged in.
Speaker 3: You're trying to use academic freedom as a shield for
Speaker 3: In fact, it is a shield for individual scholars, But
Speaker 3: it's not a cover for bureaucratic malpractice. Should American taxpayers
Speaker 3: simple question?
Speaker 2: Should it?
Speaker 3: American taxpayers be compelled to subsidize a multi billion dollar
Speaker 3: corporation that discriminates on the basis of race and religion,
Speaker 3: that actively encourages, allows and permits physical hostility, not just
Speaker 3: ideological hostility, but physical hostility toward Jewish students in flaunx
Speaker 3: its defiance of public accountability. Trump says no, and I
Speaker 3: think he's right, and the IRS ough to act, and
Speaker 3: it's certainly going to take more than just a letter
Speaker 3: from a poorly written letter from the Secretary of Education. Charity,
Speaker 3: and in particular now charity as opposed to five O
Speaker 3: one C three status. Five O one C three status
Speaker 3: is not a given. You are not entitled to five
Speaker 3: O one C three status. It is a privilege, a cloak,
Speaker 3: a status that is granted by the government, and it
Speaker 3: is grounded in public trust and certain legal tenants that
Speaker 3: by which you have to abide. Harvard's broken those, and
Speaker 3: so the IRS need to step in and revoke their privilege.
Speaker 8: Michael, I believe this lady is correct. She can steal
Speaker 8: anything she wants. She's so downtrod. You know what it's called.
Speaker 8: I got a new word for it. It's called anti privilege.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, who is correct?
Speaker 5: I missed the lady that was stealing from the target, because.
Speaker 4: That's anti privilege.
Speaker 3: That's okay, all right, So that's the new standard, anti privilege.
Speaker 2: Got it? Got it?
Speaker 9: So?
Speaker 3: Jd Vance was on CNN recently, and I'm always amazed
Speaker 3: at how he's able to cut through and just kind
Speaker 3: of obliterate.
Speaker 10: Ask yourself a basic question about network integrity. You guys
Speaker 10: talked about the Russia hoax NonStop.
Speaker 3: You talking to Jake Tapper. By the way, it's CNN.
Speaker 3: I should have pointed that out.
Speaker 10: Ask yourself a basic question about network integrity. You guys
Speaker 10: talked about the Russia hoax NonStop.
Speaker 11: The FBI was investigating, The FBI was investigating it.
Speaker 10: So we recovered that, and so you took the words
Speaker 10: of unnamed FBI agents and put them on your network.
Speaker 9: As if they were the gospel truth. You did it
Speaker 9: again and again.
Speaker 10: A view of your network would have believed that Donald
Speaker 10: Trump and Vladimir Putin conspired in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 9: That was totally, im preposterously false.
Speaker 11: Now, well, that's what you just said is we covered
Speaker 11: an FBI investigation. I don't know why you want to
Speaker 11: talk about the FBI investigation.
Speaker 10: You covered it in a way that gave credence to
Speaker 10: anonymous sources accusations.
Speaker 9: You did it yourself, your network did it.
Speaker 2: Jake Man calling out Jake himself.
Speaker 10: I love it, But again, can we talk about the
Speaker 10: issues that Americans can I'm talking.
Speaker 11: About things that Donald Trump has said. If you have
Speaker 11: an issue with whether or not he's talking about the
Speaker 11: economy enough, that's between you and your running mate. I'm
Speaker 11: talking about things he has said this week.
Speaker 10: Every single rally that he does, he talks about how
Speaker 10: he wants to unleash American energy so we can walk
Speaker 10: lower the cost of groceries.
Speaker 9: He talks about the.
Speaker 10: Fact that housing has become unaffordable. He talks about the
Speaker 10: wide open border shake. Kamala Harris and her allies. You know,
Speaker 10: it's interesting, Kamala Harris and her media allies, and I
Speaker 10: would put seeing it in this category.
Speaker 9: You guys, what you guys seem, I'll tell I'll tell
Speaker 9: you that they would.
Speaker 10: Well, they should watch your network more because you guys
Speaker 10: seem to care more about Donald Trump's past than the
Speaker 10: future of the American people. We're running this campaign on
Speaker 10: making the American dreams, specifically.
Speaker 11: Asking about how Donald Trump is going to be president
Speaker 11: in the future should he win, and then we're being
Speaker 11: told we're going to pursue economic policies that lower the
Speaker 11: cost of groceries and make life more affordable again. He
Speaker 11: talks about it every single day on the campaign trail,
Speaker 11: and so do I what you're talking about is is
Speaker 11: an anonymously sore story or one guy or who one guy?
Speaker 9: One guy who is a disgruntled employee and told her
Speaker 9: five other people.
Speaker 10: Five other people push back against him and said that
Speaker 10: what he said was dishonest.
Speaker 9: So why don't we talk about the.
Speaker 10: Policy that's affecting American citizens and not what Donald allegedly said?
Speaker 10: According to one guy who's pissed off because he got
Speaker 10: fired by Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: So the reason I wanted you hear that is because
Speaker 3: they sent Vance again to the Munich Security Conference. That's
Speaker 3: the place where shortly after the election he went and
Speaker 3: he basically said, hey, listen, you're not pulling your weight,
Speaker 3: you're pulling away from Western civilization values by allowing all
Speaker 3: of this migration and illegal immigration to occur. Well, guess
Speaker 3: what they did recently, just in the past week or so.
Speaker 3: They sent him to their US version of the Munique
Speaker 3: Security Now not the US version. They send him back
Speaker 3: to the Munich Security Conference, but the conference of the
Speaker 3: Munich Security Group that is held in the US. And
Speaker 3: he repeated the same thing again. Now they welcomed him
Speaker 3: with open arms. But I think all of this shows
Speaker 3: that there is a pattern that when you just stand
Speaker 3: up to the journalists, when you just challenge them, which
Speaker 3: nobody seems to want to do. When you just challenge them,
Speaker 3: they really don't have an answer. For example, all you
Speaker 3: did was quote anonymous sources. No, we had six sources, Yeah,
Speaker 3: all six of which were anonymous. So one anonymous source
Speaker 3: versus six anonymous sources. Guess what the underlying thread is
Speaker 3: throughout all of those they're anonymous sources. It's like the
Speaker 3: Fetterman story from yesterday. If if you quote disgruntled employees
Speaker 3: or all former employees, what's the thread through all of those? Oh,
Speaker 3: all former employees and they're all disgruntled, and now that
Speaker 3: they're no longer within range of being terminated because they're
Speaker 3: no longer working for Fetterman, then we can just say
Speaker 3: whatever you want to say about John Fetterman and do
Speaker 3: it on behalf the Democrat Party, so that up day
Speaker 3: from pushing agenda. The cabal is always pushing an agenda.