I put on a jacket because, you know,

we're interviewing a senator, but I see

that uh

>> it's polo day.

>> Senator Schmidz pulled a Zillinsky here.

>> I I did, but I told them I do have these

stiff I have these stiff collar on the

polo, which is

>> You look great. It looks great. And you

know, I lost the weight. Thanks for

noticing, Senator. And um uh I've been

hitting the weights unlike Sachs. And so

I am too trying to get the gun show

going like you have achieved there.

>> All right, besties. I think that was

another epic discussion. People love the

interviews. I could hear him talk for

hours.

>> Absolutely. We crushed your questions in

a minute.

>> We are giving people ground truth data

to underwrite your own opinion. What do

you guys think? That was fun.

>> All right, everybody. Welcome back to a

very special interview. Yeah, you know,

we're doing these interviews here uh

with me, my amazing co-host and your Zar

of crypto and AI,

the Rainman himself, David Saxs. David,

how you doing, brother? How's your

summer wrapping up?

>> Good to be here. The summer ended way

too soon.

>> Way too soon. It's so sad,

>> isn't it? It's just like

>> not ready for it to be over.

>> Kids going back to school, all that. And

look, you're a civil servant now. You

are working for the people and the

people demand you're a public servant.

Yes. And the people demand results. And

hey, we have another civil servant here.

David, why don't you introduce our guest

today?

>> This is Senator Eric Schmidt from the

state of Missouri. How did we meet? It

was it was through another former

senator, now vice president, JD Vance, I

believe.

>> That's right.

>> That's right. Yeah. And you guys entered

the Senate together at the same time.

>> We did. and uh got to be very close and

uh shared a lot of um life experiences

and uh in our freshman group got you

know pretty tight. We go to dinner once

a month and try to keep that going now

that he's even VP, which is a lot of

fun. But yeah, we got introduced through

him and uh have enjoyed getting to know

you.

>> And you now have a new book called The

Last Line of Defense, which is about

your time in your previous job, which

was as attorney general of the state of

Missouri. And I remember talking about

before I even knew you on the All-In Pod

when we were dealing with censorship and

talking about that issue, the Twitter

files. This is back in I don't know,

this is like 3 or four years ago,

>> 2022, I would say. Yeah, few years ago

now is moving.

>> We talked about the case Biden v.

Missouri, which you were the one who

brought that case when you were attorney

general. When I met you and then found

that out, I knew that we had some views

in common, let's say, about free speech

and the need to avoid censorship

>> and you went right at the show me don't

tell me what your fancy speak what's

going on. You went directly to

discovery. So maybe you could talk a

little bit about the approach uh from

the senator from the show me state.

There were rumors and kind of this

feeling people were being censored, but

nobody knew exactly how it was

occurring. So, you had some intuition

that if we do some discovery here,

there's got to be something under the

surface. Or had somebody leaked

something to you? How did you know to go

after this? I guess was my question.

>> Yeah. And one of the reasons I wrote the

book was just to, you know, I think it's

it's easy. The book starts with um you

know, in November 2024, the fever broke.

And so if you think about the four

previous years, you know, this was a

time of lockdowns and compulsory COVID

shots and forced masking of 5-year-olds,

but also this vast censorship enterprise

that existed that in my view was the

greatest affront to the First Amendment

we've ever seen in the history of our

country. And so if you go back in time,

right, to to in 2022, you had seen, to

your point, Jason, you had seen um sort

of Jen Saki at the podium talking about,

hey, we're flagging this for Facebook.

There were rumors of a disinformation

governance board um with the Mary

Poppins herself um right um talking

about how this misinformation and

disinformation I think right wasn't

there that they needed to to flag this

stuff and do something about it. We knew

that if they were willing to talk about

that stuff so publicly, there had to be

something much more beneath the surface.

So in May of 2022 when I was attorney

general of Missouri, we sued the B

administration and sort of this

leviathan of agencies that were working

to censor American speech. And we filed

the lawsuit and we knew that it would

be, you know, highly scrutinized um be

called sort of furthering conspiracy

theories, but we knew that there was

something there. And a really important

strategic decision in the case was

normally when you file a lawsuit like

that, you immediately seek a temporary

restraining order or a preliminary

injunction to get the government or

another party to stop what they're

doing. But we felt like we needed to get

evidence first, right? We had the

allegations in the complaint. So we

sought discovery and the judge granted

that discovery and what we found from

that discovery was shocking. Right? We

got reams and reams, tens of thousands

of documents, emails, text messages

about this communication, the special

portals that existed for, you know,

these folks in big government to work

with big tech to silence Americans. And

so it really was shocking. And then, of

course, we got to the point where we

were able to take depositions. We took

the deposition of Anthony Fouchy. He

took the deposition of Elvis Chan who

was the FBI agent uh in charge of

Northern California that was pre-bunking

the Hunter Biden laptop story even

though the FBI had the laptop in 2019.

Right. So we took the deposition of a

CDC official who was basically flagging

specific words and phrases that the

government would then censor and then

agencies like SISA. All of these groups

were part of this enterprise and that's

one of the reasons I wrote the book last

line of defense that people can get on

Amazon right now. it. You we go inside

those deposition rooms. You go inside

the prep for that. What we what were we

trying to find out? What did we find

out? How we uncovered this? Because you

got to remember this was before Elon

bought Twitter.

>> Yeah.

>> And before Yeah. Yeah. We those first

couple days. Yeah.

>> What's interesting about this is that

you were taking the discovery from the

government side. So you were getting the

government documents, you were deposing

government witnesses, and then Elon

released the Twitter files, I don't

know, about 6 months later. And then we

saw it from the Twitter side.

>> Yeah.

>> And this was happening at Facebook too,

right? Like you had information on the

Facebook side. Yeah.

>> Yeah. You had Meta, you had YouTube. We,

you know, all the, this was all

happening in and the way it was working

was, as you guys know, um, these big

tech platforms have something called two

section 230 protection, right? Which is

basically in the '9s when the internet's

becoming a thing, Congress says you're

not you're not a publisher, you're a

platform, so you can't be sued. That is

a huge advantage. And by the way, if

they're actually acting as a platform,

as a proponent of free speech, almost as

a free speech absolutist, that's a great

thing. The problem was a lot of these

entities were then becoming publishers.

They were throttling things they didn't

like. They were taking down opinions

they didn't support. That sort of thing.

And so what you had was Joe Biden saying

maybe there's criminal liability. you

saw these text messages in the lawsuit

from from Rob Flity who is the deputy

communications director of the White

House cussing these guys out saying you

you need to know that from the highest

levels of the White House we see this

you're not doing enough and so as much

as I think some of the the people at

these big tech companies were willing

participants there was a coercion that

was happening and that's the basis of

the lawsuit which was we all know the

government can't censor speech but you

also can't outsource that censorship to

private companies which is exactly what

was going down and I think exposing that

was really important. Uh, of course Elon

and all the work that he's done in

making that a true free speech platform

then and then of course the

congressional hearings that followed. I

think all of this has sort of laid the

groundwork for this kind of free speech

renaissance that we're experiencing. One

of the things, you know, when I was in

college, you know, in the late 90s, I

was um I was always pretty conservative.

One thing I was kind of jealous of of

liberals was that they kind of had the

high ground on free speech. they were

viewed as sort of like the Vanguard and

even the ACLU actually did things like

protect free speech. That's all gone

now. Like that there's no like it's

about power and control and limiting and

labeling things misinformation,

disinformation to to suppress speech. So

I think it's an interesting moment right

now for this new coalition that came

together to elect President Trump, which

is for me exciting. It's kind of a

working-class coalition. So

>> just to steel man it senator we know

that our foreign adversaries this is

bipartisan for many decades interfere in

our elections. We know they do that. You

would agree? Yeah.

>> This certainly would try to influence

>> certainly try. Right. And of course we

could be like hey is it possible in 50

different states with 50 different set

of regulations. Pretty hard to actually

tip an election. Um as we've seen,

right? If you look at that if we steal

man a foreign adversary because this is

the cover that they were seeking. Hey,

we're doing this to protect America and

democracy. But the truth was, you know,

they were doing it for their own

personal reasons and their affiliation

with one particular party. If you just

look at the percentage of people who are

Democrats at those companies, it's like

80, 90, 95%. So, I think we all agree on

that. Is there a way for the FBI, for

the CIA, for our government to say to

Twitter, to Facebook, hey, you've got

people here who are foreign adversaries.

they're doing something uh that is

against the American public. We need you

to monitor this account and take them

down. What would have been the proper

channel as opposed to setting up a

covert back channel where they kind of

threatened them? One layer here that

I've never heard anybody connect, but

when I was listening to your Tucker

interview, it it just dawned on me. They

also put Lena Khan in. Now, Zuckerberg

is a cutthroat business executive. He

likes to buy companies. That's his

thing. And Twitter was known for buying

a lot of companies. So now you got Lena

Khan saying, "We're going to we're going

to come down hard on you, not let you

buy anything." And at the same time,

this other group from the Biden

administration is saying, "Hey, take

this stuff down." So they had two really

big clubs to to to threaten these folks.

But what would be the proper channels to

say, "Hey, these things are stolen."

Right.

>> Yeah. There's there's a difference

between sort of making people aware um

versus the coercion um that was

happening under the threat of

investigations or losing section 230

protections. Right. That was that was

that was our argument which was this

went beyond informing and this was about

colluding and and coercing which of

course then crosses the line of what the

government can do you know as far as

violating the first amendment. There's

also to your point there's a couple of

things that are happening at the same

time here. The first is kind of this

honestly is kind of legacy of the whole

Russia gate hoax stuff in that they

concocted this um this theme um that is

playing out now like Tulsi Gabra is

exposing a lot of stuff but that gave

them the in their view that gave them

the guys to talk about Russia this

Russia that everything that they don't

like is misinformation disinformation

right the other thing that was happening

with Zuckerberg in particular you know

you got to remember if you go back to

2016, a lot of people blamed him. If he

didn't like Trump, they blamed him

because they thought that somehow um

what was happening on Facebook

contributed to his election and it

shouldn't have happened. But then, of

course, he he then is part of the whole

Zuckerbucks movement in the leadup to to

2020. Then he comes back around and

Biden's in office and he's pressured um

and then he kind of, you know, on the

rogue on Joe Rogan kind of talks about

the the the lengths at which they went

to pressure him. And now it it seems as

though maybe he's been red pilledled

again. I don't really know where that's

at.

>> No, no, I can tell you he's a weather

vein. That's just how you know which way

the wind's blowing. Zuckerberg.

>> So yeah, like it's out of behind is just

>> But it's interesting like him as sort of

this kind of maybe that's the right word

of kind of how this was vacasillating

from from one place to the next. But the

point is

>> if Kamala won I'll give her

>> he would have been all in for Kamala

100%. He would have been at the

inauguration for her. He would have

donated to her. Trust me, we know him.

It's my opinion. But I I give him I give

him a little more credit in the

following sense is that Zuckerberg gave

a speech a while back where he talked

about how social networking was the

fourth estate and you've got the media

and then you got social networking and

it's very disruptive and therefore

people want to censor it and he

basically supported that we should have

freedom of speech for social networking

like we do for the press because it's

equally important and I think that is

his actual view it's just that the

question is you know how much stomach

does he have for fighting

the government when it's pressuring him

and coercing him and some other part of

the government is basically threatening

to break up his company.

>> Right.

>> Yeah. Right.

>> Like a fifth estate, right? And so I

think that if he wasn't being pressured

by the government at all and just left

to his own devices, I think he'd be

fairly

pro- free speech, but I just think that

he wasn't really willing to take up the

banner and fight the way that Elon was,

you know, and really

>> anti- Elon in that respect. He's the

anti- Elon. He cares about his stock

price. He cares about money. This is my

interpretation. And he's going to

protect the franchise and the stock

price.

>> But that's what most business people

would do. I mean, I think Elon was an

outlier in terms of being willing to

fight for principle. Which is why I

think that going back to the central

premise of Biden v. Missouri, when the

government is jawboning these companies,

instructing them to take down content or

highly suggesting it and basically

threatening that there'll be

repercussions if they don't, most

business people are going to give into

that. Of course,

>> and it is and it is de facto censorship.

>> Well, and if you think about it too, I

mean, there's just a couple of things if

they didn't happen, all of this stuff

would still be considered a conspiracy

theory or we wouldn't know about it.

Like, if we didn't, nobody else had

filed. If we didn't file that lawsuit

and seek discovery and if the richest

guy on the planet doesn't choose to buy

Twitter and expose all of that, people

would still be claiming that this was

some conspiracy theory, right? like we

wouldn't if you just think the world

would be a much different place right

now. And so I think that's a big

success.

>> Well, I agree and just to take people

back, you're exactly right that

conservatives were called crazy and

conspiracy theorists for believing that

Twitter, you know, then Twitter was

shadowbanning and throttling traffic.

And I remember when Elon took over, you

know, we had the Twitter transition and

Jay Khal and I were there and um we were

just helping out first couple of weeks

and it was mostly just getting org

charts and trying to rationalize the orc

structure and Elon went in and started

making cuts. But then I think I left

around Thanksgiving and we were all kind

of with our families and you know I

think we went down to Mexico and Elon

was still there working and I remember I

got a text from him at like 2:00 in the

morning like are you up? hang you up.

>> Hang you up.

>> You up going to be a banger?

>> Yeah. I'm like, "Sure." Yeah. So anyway,

he calls and basically what he told me

was that all the conspiracy theories are

true that we've now gone into the admin

tools that the trust and safety team was

using and they literally have checkboxes

to throttle accounts based on exclude

them from search and they had all these

different tools that they had created

again to throttle traffic which was

effectively shadowbanning. So they could

just ban you outright or they could

prevent your content from being seen. In

other words, everything that

conservatives had claimed was true.

>> And to just to to add to that, Senator,

before you respond, the thing that's

particularly interesting about this is

you talked about 230. We want platforms

to have 230, but when you start making

editorial decisions, when you're the New

York Times and you say, "Hey, this is

going on the front page." It's an

editorial decision. When you assign the

story, that's an editorial decision. The

230 was given to platforms that didn't

make editorial decisions. This is an

editorial decision to say Milo

Yiannopoulos or Laura Loomer or Alex

Jones, whatever the reason is. They

could be anti-semitic. They could be

crazy. They could, you know,

>> or the president of the United States,

which was

>> We'll get into that one for sure because

there's a lot of good questions there.

>> This is one of the things that Elon had

done that very day was he opened up the

Twitter jails and let Trump back onto

the platform and there were some others.

Jordan Peterson was It was a little bit

like Arkham's Asylum. You did let a

couple of crazy people back on too.

>> No, all the bad boys of free speech were

let out. I mean, it was Trump, Tate,

Jordan Peterson, um Jaria, folks like

Peterson.

>> The public doesn't need to be protected

from any of these people.

>> I mean, Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex

Jones, you may find them losome or funny

or anything in between, but it is

freedom of speech. But Senator, this has

led to a discussion of 230 being

repealed. And this is where I think, you

know, the lawsuit you did and there

could be further work is clarifying the

nuance of 230. Should an algorithm de

facto be an editorial decision? So if

you have an algorithm and you say, "Hey,

I'm going to show you more MAGA stuff.

I'm going to show you more AOC." That's

an editorial decision in my mind. Should

that break section 230 if somebody

decides to build an algorithm that

shapes the content you see when you open

the app just like the New York Times

editors do?

>> Right. That's sort of like in in the

last line defense book is sort of like

what are the solutions are? We talk

about what's the proper role of section

230 because I actually think if you are

a true platform as somebody again that

believes in free speech it's a very

important thing. One of the concerns

like I'm I'm not a doomsday guy on on

AI. I think there's um think it can add

to human flourishing. I think it can

actually make us more productive and

there's a lot of there's a lot of

opportunities that roll with it. One of

the things I'm most concerned though is

about censorship creeping in to AI,

right? And so I think you have to be

very clear that if you're going to start

making these edit, whether it's a, you

know, somebody individually is flagging

it or you have an algorithm that is

essentially excluding 50% of the points

of view, you should not get the

multi-billion dollar subsidy. That

effectively what section 230 protection

is, right? It's a huge advantage and it

should and by the way I'm all for that

but I think this manipulation that by

the way is sort of sewn into the heart

>> though the algorithm because you know

what an algorithm is you're like a

techsavvy guy and it's great to have

senators who are

>> but you can't but but like just like

government

>> how can you have an algorithm that's

designed to produce a certain output how

can you have that coexist with 230 is my

question I have my own answers but I'm

curious in in your answer

>> yeah I think I think you got to get back

to one of the first amendment principles

which is it has to be contentneutral

that's how I view it. Now, you can have

protections you, you know, you there are

certain public safety protections that

are going to be in play. You could have

protections against people, you know,

sort of pedophilia that that you know

would violate terms of service.

Something there is a role

>> violate laws, right? I mean,

>> correct. Yeah.

>> And but I also think what's interesting

is when you go back and look at this

case, the pressure on the platforms

wasn't just about phrases. They made

them alter terms of service to actually

meet what the desired outcomes that they

wanted. And and also at and and David,

you guys were you saw this.

Interestingly, the kind of how deep the

rot really was. Let's just take Twitter

for an example. James Baker, who's James

Baker? James Baker was the general

counsel for the FBI during the Hunter

Biden, I'm sorry, the briefings during

the Russia gate back then um at the end

of 2016. He then after a stent at um

some think tank becomes the general

counsel at Twitter.

>> He was the one inside Twitter. we now

know from the Twitter files was

advocating to censor the Hunter Biden

laptop story even though he should have

known based on his time at the FBI that

the laptop was authentic, i.e. it was

Hunter Biden's actual laptop and the

grounds upon which that story was

censored was that the laptop was Russian

disinformation. This was the

triedand-true tactic for years is that

any speech that was inconvenient and

that Democrats wanted to censor, they

just called Russian disinformation even

though the Russians had nothing to do

with that laptop. And and to dig even

further into that, what's interesting is

so Elvis Chan is the guy at the FBI in

um in in late 2000 2019 2020 is briefing

the big tech companies um monthly, at

least monthly, then it becomes weekly.

And we took his deposition in the

Missouri versus Biden lawsuit and it was

kind of shocking. You can read about in

the book, but like what he what he

talked about was they had the they had

the Hunter Biden laptop in in November

of 2019. The FBI did. They knew it was

real. Like they knew it was real. It's

Hunter Biden's laptop. Yel Roth, as you

remember, who was like the integrity guy

at Twitter, signs an affidavit with the

FEC after complaint was filed against

Twitter, noting specifically that the

FBI was telling them that this could be

a Hunter Biden. So, this wasn't just

going to be some random hack and leak

operation from the Russians. It was

related specifically to Hunter Biden.

>> Senator, in fairness, the Russians did

hack Hillary Clinton's email. That was

confirmed. And

>> we don't know that.

>> We of course we do. The FBI confirmed

it. Absolutely was confirmed.

>> That's I think that's all part of the

hoax.

>> Uh okay. Well, let me give you a couple

of reasons why I could see the New York

Post uh I'm sorry. We could see the

platform saying if the FBI calls and

says it's a Russian hack and we've had a

bunch of Russian hacks before and the

president said you should uh hey Russia

if you're listening send me the emails

and you had Paul Maniffort be indicted

believes in this Russia gate hoax

which is the laptop was authentic and

David let me finish mine. Let me finish

mine and you can give me the key point

and tell me why I'm wrong. There was a

bunch of noise around Russia. I think

Russia did this on purpose to cause

chaos here. I don't think they cared who

got in. I think they just want chaos.

That's my personal belief. But if you

were Twitter and the FBI calls and says,

"Hey, this was hacked and we have these

previous instances of hacking that the

FBI has confirmed and has told the world

this is what happened." And you have

Paul Manifford being indicted and you

have all this other noise. It's a

reasonable thing for Facebook or Twitter

in my mind to say, "Okay, maybe we wait

a week. Maybe this is like the the

Russians really are doing this." I don't

blame them as much. Do you?

>> Well, the truth is like there's parallel

tracks here. First of all, we know now

um that the Russia that that Trump was

some some Russian asset. That's totally

fake. That's like it like we all agree

on that.

>> It did it didn't happen. But they use

that of course then to spy on a

presidential candidate. That's what

Barack Obama did. And then you had of

course Brennan and Clapper and Comey

continue this and really tried to

sidetrack a presidential administration.

So I I think indictments are probably

coming. That's a sort of a separate

issue. The reality is because if because

you know even though statute of

limitation may have expired, a

conspiracy if ongoing the statute of

limitation has not expired. So we'll see

where that all goes. But if you're

making the point that the government

shouldn't be having that much uh

influence and coercing and threatening

these big tech companies, I would agree

with you that that's a violation of the

First Amendment. My point is I just the

the idea that the big big tech was so

willingly going along with all this

though, right, is a little scary. These

are some of the biggest companies in the

history of the world. And the idea that

something that the FBI knew to be true

wasn't out there for the American people

to sort of weigh in on 10 days before an

election is kind of Orwellian.

>> But that's on the FBI, I think. Yeah.

Not

>> the FBI. I'm totally unclean hands here.

There's no doubt about that.

>> Okay. Yeah. Let me jump in here with a

couple of points. So, okay, let let's

just focus on this Hunter Biden story

because I think there is a very

plausible argument that the censorship

of this story could have swung the

results of the 2020 election. Okay?

Because the Hunter Biden laptop showed a

bunch of shady foreign business dealings

between the Biden family and China and

Ukraine and other countries. And if that

had been properly examined by the media

instead of being censored by social

media 10 days before the election, who

knows what the outcome would have been.

So this was a major major deal. Now, why

did that story get censored? We now know

from the Twitter files, this is the

reporting of Matt Taibbei who was given

access to the Twitter files that like

Eric is saying, the FBI knew in late

2019 that the laptop was real because

they had it in their possession and

therefore authenticated it. What was

their reaction to it? In my view, they

could have done three different things.

Number one is they could have

investigated the crimes that were

suggested by the evidence on that

laptop. They didn't do that. Number two

is they could have just sat on it and

done nothing. They didn't do that. They

did number three, which is they

basically began a campaign to suppress

the contents of the laptop. How did they

do that? Elvis Chan representing the FBI

was engaged in weekly meetings with

these social networks. Again, this is

from the Twitter files. and Elvis Chan

represented the intelligence community.

One of the the emails described his

group as the belly button of the conduit

between the social networks and the

intelligence community. And remember,

Elvis Chan had something like 80 FBI

agents who are submitting takedown

requests to Twitter and other social

networks. So, this is the scale of the

censorship that was happening. In any

event, in these weekly IC meetings, and

a lot of the evidence has been destroyed

because they were using that

disappearing tool, teleport. In any

event, in these weekly meetings, we now

know that they were warning the social

networks, be on the lookout for a

Russian disinformation campaign in which

Hunter Biden is accused of something.

And so they for months were priming the

social networks to view any story, any

revelations about Hunter Biden as being

Russian disinformation.

Now, why were they doing that? In fact,

there was at one point there was what

was called a quote unquote tabletop

exercise where all the heads of trust

and safety at these social networks were

brought I think they were brought to the

Aspen Institute and they literally ran a

tabletop exercise where they said okay

two weeks before the election the

Russians are going to do an oppo dump on

Hunter Biden. What's your response to

that going to be? And where they all

ended up is that they would censor the

story. I mean this is like crazy

Orwellian stuff. I mean,

>> it makes sense for just to steal man it

for them to want to do the right thing

if the FBI is telling them it's Russian

disinformation.

>> Oh, I don't blame the social networks.

They

>> That's what I'm trying That's the only

point I'm trying to make. And Zuckerberg

went on. Remember when Zuckerberg went

on Rogan and he said the reason why we

censor that story is because the FBI had

told us to. Most people in that

situation would have believed the FBI.

>> All three of us would. The point is

though that the FBI again, they could

have investigated the crimes on the

laptop. They could have sat on the

laptop and done nothing. That's not what

they did. Instead, they began this

campaign to discredit the eventual

revelations

information.

>> Senator, what happened to those

individuals at the FBI? I'm curious if

you can get to that as well. Who were

involved in all this? Were they ever

brought up on charges? No. Do we ever

figure out who they are? there there

needs to be accountability here because

I also think it's important to point out

that so take SISA which is the cyber

security infrastructure

security agency no one's ever heard of

it uh it was created effectively to

protect infrastructure from cyber

attacks in that era when Trump was

president underground they work on under

the guise of Russian disinformation the

what's called the election integrity uh

project so they work with Stanford they

work with University of Washington to

flag post to work with social media

companies then when you get into co they

just flip the switch and turn it on any,

you know, if you're questioning the

efficacy of the vaccine or you're

questioning the efficacy of masks, they

turn that around in the American people,

too. So, part of the point that's

outlined in the book, Last Line of

Defense, which you can order right now

on Amazon. Um, the part of the point was

exposing all this was this was a

Leviathan. This wasn't just like one

person making a phone call. This was all

these agencies that were lined up with

the regime's narrative and then working

and coercing and threatening social

media companies. You will take this down

or there will be consequences. And so,

um, you know, the CDC, I mentioned the

CDC. What were they doing? The

government went to him and said, tell us

the phrases that you want us to flag and

take down and and then we will work with

social media companies effectively,

right, to go do that. And so, the FBI

was involved in this. SISA was involved

with this. the CDC was involved with

this. And then of course when we had the

opportunity to take Anthony Fouch's

deposition at NIH, uh that was

mind-blowing. Uh it's only the second

time his deposition was taken and we

find out all the links at which he went

to to undermine people like by the way

Dr. Jay Badacharia who was a plaintiff

in Missouri versus Biden with me um to

undermine his efforts to say things like

well natural immunity is kind of a thing

still. I mean, they tried to take down

this guy's career and anybody like that

who would just sort of question anything

other than what Anthony Fouchy said. So,

it it really was a time that was wild

and crazy and we can't ever let happen

again. That's the sort of the point and

and for me as you guys I I know believe

this as a long as a I I told Jason first

time long time on the show now

>> the be the first amendment really is the

beating heart of the Constitution. One

of the great tests of this American

experiment is our ability to tolerate

people's point of view or their

expression of a point of view that we

vehemently disagree with even if we

think it's dangerous. Like that's really

a big part of what this whole thing is

about. And what you saw during CO in

particular was people who who had who

never should had this power were

exercising in ways that you would have

thought was from another country. You

know what I mean? Like this couldn't

happen here, but it was happening here.

I I don't know if you remember the foil

lady, literally the person who was

supposed to be policing uh and making

sure that things were on the up and up

uh at the CDC was teaching them

allegedly how to use hacker speak or

their personal email addresses to

subvert

>> freedom of information,

>> right,

>> requests. I mean, I'll put allegedly in

front of it, but I think this was all,

you know, uh discoverable and they and

it was in the email. She just taught

people how to lie and how to subvert

>> foyer requests. So when you start saying

Orwellian, it does feel like this

absolute power has that ability to

absolute.

>> You know, Eric mentioned the NOS's that

are part of this Leviathan. I think that

is a really important part of it because

I think that one of the ways that the

Biden administration was able to kind of

create cover for the censorship they

wanted is to kind of launder those

censorship requests through some of

these NOS's in addition to using the FBI

and the IC and their connections to

trust and safety. One NGO in particular

I want to talk about or ask about is

Hamilton 68. Did you did you look at

this at all, Eric, or

>> remind me which one Hamilton 68 is? The

reason I wanted to talk about this one

is this idea of Russian disinformation

because Hamilton 68 was another one of

these groups. This is all exposed in

Matt Tybee's reporting where it was set

up by another former FBI official named

Clint Watts. you know, these former FBI

guys are are kind of all over. And they

claimed that they were tracking 600 or

so Russian disinformation accounts or

bots. And they claimed to know which

accounts these were. And they would put

out stories that whenever there was a

story that Democrats didn't like, they

would accuse the Russians of being

behind it, amplifying that story. And

this was the the source for thousands of

MSNBC stories, thousands of CNN reports

and so on claiming that the Russians

were involved in our politics. They were

engaging in disinformation. Well, why

why is this relevant? Well, during the

Twitter files, we found out there was um

Yoyel Roth, who you mentioned was the

head of trust and safety and definitely

not a conservative. There was

correspondence inside of Twitter saying,

"Hey, we looked at their so-called API

and these are just regular accounts."

And he said, "Basically, this is all

bullshit." I mean, I think he used that

word In other words, the whole

idea they were tracking Russian accounts

was just total nonsense. These were, you

know, it was just a random smattering of

some were conservative accounts, some

were Canadian accounts. They were just

random accounts. And so anytime they

needed to oppose conservative opinion on

an issue, they would just supposedly

point to this Hamilton 68 dashboard.

Hamilton 68 created this dashboard that

supposedly showed, you know, this um

vast Russian influence campaign. It all

ended up being

>> nonsense. Well, and I think it totally

came out of thin air. I think

>> the Russian there's a long track record

of the Russians hacking, including the

RNC recently. So, you know, I I I do

think you are painting a very one-sided

picture here, Saxs.

>> Maybe it's all

>> You think the Russians are not hacking

foreign adversaries at all?

>> You don't believe any of it?

>> Russia's got a lot of good hackers in

it, and I'm sure they have cyber

operations and things like that, but

again, that's a little different than

saying that the Russians are heavily

involved in our elections. I believe

that that was largely a madeup story.

Now, look, do I want to say that no

Russian ever was involved in some sort

of operation? I'm not going to say that.

But we know Hamilton 68 was total

nonsense. In fact, it was worse than

that. It was a hoax. Okay? It was a

hoax. And for years, it was the basis

for thousands of stories that the

Russians were interfering in our

politics. We also know that the Steel

Dossier was a hoax. And that was the

whole basis once laundered through the

FBI and that whole investigation that

somehow the Russians had interfered in

the 2016 election. So when you start to

peel away all these bogus accusations,

Jason, yeah, I don't really believe any

of this stuff. When I hear the words

Russian disinformation, what I hear now

is red scare.

>> Senator, I'm going to have you uh

Senator, I'm gonna have you chime in

here and and maybe balance out our two

opinions. Obviously, the Russians have

been hacking political organizations in

the United States and other countries

for decades. They did it to the RNC.

They did it to Hillary. They do it as a

tactic. That is a fact. And also, I

don't think anybody thinks like uh Trump

is a manurian candidate. So, you tell me

where reality is between the

>> Chinese do it too. There's no question.

>> Yeah, Chinese are big, of course. But I

think what what separates this though

was that now that we know what we know,

I mean actually in the documents that

were released by released by Telsey

Gabber, the director of national

intelligence, was that Hillary Clinton

was the preferred candidate. They had

the goods on her. They had her medical

records, all this stuff. They So Trump

was not like this preferred Putin.

>> The Russians had all that hacked

information. Yeah, they had that. And so

what was done was Hillary Clinton knew

that she had an email problem and then

she works with a Joros George Soros

funded um NGO, right? They come up with

this plan to say, well Trump is is is

cozy with Russia. The steel dossier

finds this oppo whatever is fake oppo.

Then they, as David said, they launder

it through intelligence agents. Then

that became the thing. And I think the

problem is and why people have lost

trust in a lot of these institutions in

many cases rightfully so is because they

were really weaponized against political

opponents and they were weaponized

against the American people. And there's

going to be have to be a sort of a a lot

of accountability I think before people

gain that trust back. So I think

>> that was my next question is how do we

get past this because we're sitting here

with like one group who feels hey

there's all these really suspicious

Russian connections to Trump and the

people around him.

>> Jason, can't you see that this was

manufactured? It's manu. You have to

start with some parts manufactured. Yes.

And then some parts of it reals

manufactured. It was a hoax.

>> We get it. There there's there's

>> Hamilton 68 and all the stories based on

it. Manufactured hoax.

>> How do we get to reality where we

>> first got to peel back you got to peel

back all the fakeness.

>> Well, I think also you have to accept

that the Russians are hackers and don't

have our best interest and they actually

want to come after us politically.

David, this idea.

>> I'm sure the Russians have cyber

operations.

that they hacked Hillary and you know he

knows and this has all been confirmed.

>> The problem here is that that was used

um as a as a as a predicate. Again, this

is why it's it's so jarring. It was used

as a predicate to spy Barack Obama

authorizes to spy on a presidential

candidate and then as a predicate then

to investigate a a president in waiting

and then as a predicate to try to

destroy his administration. and it was

used and it and it gobbled up so much

time in those first two years. That to

me is is a pretty unique circumstance.

And beyond just yeah, foreign nations

are trying to get information.

>> Since we're here, there's this lawsuit

that is now happening um or this

investigation, I guess, as a as an

attorney and you were the AG. explain to

the American people what the case is

right now that they're going after, you

know, um with uh this Russia gate

allegations and then where is it in the

courts? Give us the mechanics of it and

where do you think it winds up?

>> So the question is um was there was

anything done um illegal uh during the

sort of Russia gate hoax stuff that

could be chargeable? I think you've got,

ironically, um, uh, Barack Obama has

presidential immunity because of the

case that President Trump won at the

Supreme Court, which by the way, my

solicitor general at the time in

Missouri was John Sauer. He's now the

solicitor general of the United States.

He was also Trump's lawyer who argued

that presidential immunity case about a

year ago. But so, um, he probably has

immunity from official acts when he was

in office, but not when he's out of

office. So the the real question will be

um you sort of uh a conspira I think the

most likely charge you can make the case

is a conspiracy against a conspiracy to

defraud the United States. This is a a

very elaborate scheme again to undermine

people and and whether they get

indictments or not I think they should

pursue them and and we'll see if that

happens. Um but I think the like the

most likely targets of that are Comey,

Clapper, and Brennan um for their role.

>> And they're being accused of what

exactly?

>> Of manipulating this and manipulating

these falsehoods into actionable

intelligence again against the president

of the United States, Donald Trump.

>> What are they being charged with, I

guess, is what I'm getting at. Or has

that point? You can't be the head of the

FBI or the head of the CIA and have

information you know is false to then

open up a criminal investigation against

the president, which is what happened,

right? And so that's a kind of a big

thing. So, um, again, most people would

say probably the statute of limitations

has has run on on many of those charges.

But again, an ongoing conspiracy is

something different. And by the way, the

conspiracy doesn't need to involve you

from point A to point Z once you sort of

begin the conspiracy. So like uh you

know, again, it just go down this rabbit

hole a little bit like what was Jack

Smith looking for at Mara Lago um when

he went down there? Like he's probably

looking for some of the uh the

information related to the steel dossier

that they thought that he probably took

with him. I don't know that for certain,

but that's certainly a plausible

explanation. So this and again you have

to remember Jason that President Trump

leaves office. He announces he's running

for president in the fall of 2022.

3 days later a few things happen. Then

the assistant district attorney in

Atlanta in a state case visits the White

House council's office. The number three

person at DOJ leaves the Department of

Justice and goes work for Alvin Bragg

who then later brings a case against

President Trump. Jack Smith is appointed

a special counsel who's in prosecutor

world, you know, he's this hired gun. He

goes out and tries to put President

Trump in jail for the rest of his life.

They try to bankrupt his family. So like

it it is very obvious to anyone paying

attention that this lawfare that was

aimed against Donald Trump was meant to

make sure he never got back in office

again. And by the way, if he never got

back in office again, all the stuff that

Tulsi Gabbard discovered and and laid

out there that Cash Patel found in burn

bags wouldn't be out in the open. So

much like how we exposed the corruption

in Missouri versus Biden, I think that's

kind of where we're at right now with

Russ.

>> This is a big jump though because the

FBI raid on Mara Lago was because Trump

wouldn't give back these uh specific

documents that

>> what were the documents they were

looking for, right? What were the

documents they were looking for? that he

was obstructing justice and that they

were, you know, video cameras, etc.

>> And that case didn't didn't get past a a

motion to dismiss.

>> Right.

>> You're making the jump from that that

they were looking for

something related to the steel dossier

and Trump could have just given those

document backs. I always wondered in

that one, why he just didn't give the

documents back? Like why was he so

steadfast?

>> He could declassify anything as

president, which was the likely

scenario, but they but they did it

anyway. I mean, I think

>> but why would he just get I mean, if you

were advising him, wouldn't you just

tell him like, "Hey, just give the

documents back." Like,

>> I think he was in touch with the

archavist. Um, and and that was an

ongoing conversation. And then Jack

Smith with the federal prosecutor down

in in Florida moved with guns to seize

these documents, right? I mean, it's

very unusual. I just don't I mean, I

just never understood why he just didn't

give the documents back. It would just I

mean I know Trump does unique things in

the world and but I would have just

given the documents back which is what

every other president did when they were

asked to give documents back.

>> Sure. But except remember Joe Biden who

wasn't ever president. He was vice

president who can't declassify

documents. Had boxes and boxes of

classified documents in his garage where

Hunter Biden lived. So like what you're

down to now Jal, you started believing

that Trump was a Russian asset. He's a

Russian spy based Yeah, you did. You

were tweeting it at the time.

>> I I thought you should No, no, I didn't.

I if I I always thought that was like a

crazy concept.

>> Deleted those tweets, but you did.

>> No, no. It's okay. You were fooled by

the media. It's okay. A lot of people

were fooled.

>> I said this very clear on the pod.

>> I always believe the Russians wanted to

create chaos like we're experiencing

here in this discussion amongst

Americans to distract us and that they

would do it even-handedly with anybody.

They would do it. people who are

creating the chaos were actually the

people who perpetrated this coup attempt

against the president. The people who

perpetrated the Hamilton 68 dashboard

fraud. Those are the people who

perpetrated the chaos.

>> Sure. I I I think if the Russians were

evidence you don't have specific

evidence. You don't have specific

evidence of a Russian hack.

>> Go read Matt Taby's reporting.

>> I just gave this I just gave it to you.

The the RNC the head of the RNC said,

"Yes, we were hacked. Our our our uh

partners were hacked." They they they

explicitly said this. This is all facts,

David. But anyway, we got we got the

senator here. We we can have our a

Russian gay debate forever. You could

tell me that I think Trump's a Russian

asset. I don't think Trump's a Russian

asset. I think that's insane. But I do

think the Russians like to cause chaos.

Moving on.

>> Brennan, I believe it was Brennan and

these Tulsi documents that just got

released. Here's what I think is so

notable about them. I mean, other people

may have their own opinion is that it

shows that I think there's there's a

document there where Brennan Brennan was

like the head of the CIA,

>> correct? He received an intelligence

assessment from the organization in

which they said, "Look, there's nothing

to this. It's bogus. We haven't

>> the steel dossier." You're saying,

>> not just a stealier, but the whole idea

that of somehow that the Russians had

run this elaborate interference

operation in the 2016 election and that

somehow Trump was compromised. In other

words, the intelligence analysts did

their job and came up with the correct

conclusion. And nonetheless,

Brennan said that the steel dossier

should be included in the official

intelligence assessment because it had

the quote ring of truth to it. Okay. So,

he was advised by his own analysts that

this was nonsense and yet he pushed to

include it

>> in the official intelligence report and

then that became the basis for opening

the investigation. You see how this

worked

>> allegedly? and we'll find out. He'll

have their day in court. I mean, I'm

totally

>> This is what's in the documents.

>> Well, I mean, we'll find out if this is

a um a theatrical exercise or if it's

actually going to go to court. What do

you think? I

>> I think it'll go to court. I think this

is um

>> and and by the way, I think it's one of

the reasons why they were so obsessed in

making sure President Trump never got

back into office. One of the reasons. I

mean again in the book I talk about how

there's just a an emergency real or

perceived then you other people and then

you try to silence dcent. I think it

happened with co um it happened with

this r anybody that that claimed that

Russia didn't have um you know that that

President Trump wasn't a Russian asset

was a traitor and a Putin lover. I mean

this stuff it's kind of wild honestly

but I I think we're on the other side of

the fever dream. Uh and but there does

need to be some accountability now.

>> This is your first term as senator I

believe. Yes. Yes. I was elected in

2022. Yep.

>> I'm curious. One, any great stock tips?

Uh, two,

>> you have to call. Are we done with the

Russia gate now? Is that

>> Russia gate now? We're just trying to

get some inside information on number

two. Look, I think one of the reasons

why the Russia, we can stop talking

about Russia gate, but I think one of

the reasons why it was so important,

first of all, it was effectively a coup

against the president of the United

States because these were executive

branch officials who owe a duty of

loyalty to the elected president.

Instead, they were working to subvert

and undermine him based on essentially

lies and and hoaxes and manufactured

material. I mean, that is that is

basically the definition of a of a coup.

So, I think that is a big deal in and of

itself. But I think the other reason why

it's such a big deal is I do think that

it helped create this intense

Russophobia in the United States that

has led us to the point we're at right

now, which is we are basically in a war

with Russia, or at least we're backing

Ukraine in a war with Russia. And

actually, you heard this at the Alaska

summit. I think that this whole Russia

gate thing, which we now know is

completely bogus, poisoned relations

between the United States and Russia for

years because the media kept reporting

this bogus idea that somehow Trump was a

Russian asset and somehow they had

interfered in our elections.

And I think this helped create a a very

hostile relationship between the United

States and Russia.

>> Clearly, Russia gate led to the Putin.

Well, it led it led to it led to a sour

crossing the border and led it led to a

souring of the relationship. It led to a

souring of the relationship and it led

>> doesn't justify his murderous campaign

in Ukraine. David, you would agree.

>> I'm not that's not the argument I'm

making.

>> I know, but I'm forcing you to agree

that he invaded Ukraine and murdered

people and he's a war criminal. And you

know that those are just facts as well,

David. I'm sorry. I think those are

cliches that that basically attempt to

strip that complicated war of all of its

context so that we can achieve a

peaceful solution to it. Obviously, you

got obviously Putin obviously Putin

invaded the country, but the conflict

there goes back 10 years. There's a long

history to it.

>> Yeah,

>> I'm not looking to rehash all of that.

The point is we could have worked out a

resolution to this conflict maybe before

it started if we didn't have hostile

relations with Russia. And that's the

point I'm trying to make.

>> Senator, I'll give you uh the choice. I

want to talk to you about just the

Senate in general and um and then I

wanted to talk a little and your

experiences there or we could just go

right into what's happening with this uh

Russian peace deal and the status.

>> We can do both. I I um I think I was

actually

>> I was on a Sunday show yesterday and and

>> I I consider myself firmly in the camp

of u being an American realist. Uh I I

think that a lot of the people that are

really critical of President Trump's

efforts right now have been wrong about

foreign policy for a very very long

time. Jake Sullivan included, right? Who

presided over the with the disastrous

withdrawal of Afghanistan who um by

basically on his watch Russia invaded.

>> What is their position, Senator? What do

you think their position is? Like why

are they so tweaked that he met with

Putin, do you think?

>> I don't know. Uh because there is no

plan. There's never been a plan. The

only plan they ever had was is that the

United States taxpayer would continue to

funnel over $200 billion without a plan.

And I had a problem with that in my

first couple years. The Vice President

Vance viewed the world kind of similarly

with that in the same way. I think we

ought to focus on our core national

interest, the homeland. We have to

figure out a way to pivot to China. We

have to get our NATO allies to step up

in a much more meaningful way. I think

one of the great ironies of all this is

that, you know, the these European

countries who are going to be in the

White House in the Oval Office today

They talk about Putin being this

existential threat. Well, they sure

don't act like it. They don't, you know,

they don't spend like it. You mean

>> correct? And it, by the way, if they

spent what we spent on national defense,

that would free up about $300 billion

for us to focus actually on the Indo

Pacific, where China now has a bigger

navy than we have. Not a better navy,

but a bigger navy. There is space for

it.

>> Trump's biggest accomplishment is

probably geopolitically getting NATO uh

to spend what they're supposed to spend.

Yeah.

>> Yeah. I went over to uh I was actually

at the uh the um the Munich Security

Conference. I went over there. I'm a bit

of a contrarian there. I guess I would

say the ascending wing of the Republican

party on this kind of realism versus um

this kind of Wilsonian adventurism

that's dominated permanent Washington

for a long time just to tell them the

truth, which is not what they wanted to

hear, but the truth, which is the things

I just said. You need to step up in more

meaningful way. Um you know, if you

think about the Cold War, it was meant

to sort of prop them up to defeat Soviet

communism. Our trade deals were never

renegotiated. We never expected much

more from him and all that's happening

now. So, this is kind of the place that

I've been hoping to be. But I think

President Trump's trying to broker a

piece here. The problem with the critics

is they just don't have an alternative.

This is a meat grinder. This is a war of

attrition. This is what Russia does.

That's what they've done for centuries.

So, if you're if your if your solution

is that, well, we shouldn't we shouldn't

talk to Putin. I don't know how you get

to a peace deal. Diplomacy means you

talk to some people that you would never

want your daughter to marry, but like

you accept the world as it is and try to

move forward. And I think that's what

he's trying to do.

>> And David, I think the chances of

successfully negotiating anything with a

dictator who gets to do whatever he

wants is like five or 10% on on a good

day.

>> Are you talking about Zillinsky? My

lord, you have it in for the the

emerging democracy that was invaded by

>> Zalinsky is now in his what is it? Fifth

or six year of a fouryear term. Hold on.

No, this is this is just me saying it.

I'm not anyone else.

>> No, you're out of your lane.

>> So Zalinsky basically banned opposition

political parties. He basically cracked

down on the press. You don't get you

don't get to be a reporter in Ukraine

unless you get a license from the

government. He cracked down on uh

religion, on the Russian Orthodox

Church, priests, nuns, so forth. He's

basically seized the assets of his

political opponents. And most

importantly, he's now in the like fifth

year of a four-year term. He canceled

elections. So, I'm not quite sure upon

what exactly you're making these highly

moralistic condemnations. I just think

the conflict is much more complicated

than you would like it to be. And you

know this whole idea that Zillinsky

represents democracy whereas Putin

represents authoritarianism that's not

what's going on.

>> Just statistically you're wrong. If you

were to look at any of the ratings of

democracies in the world, Russia would

be amongst the lowest scores and the

Ukraine would be in the high middle

scores compared to the truly free

countries.

>> Of course he canceled elections. But I'd

have to you have to think twice about

that since he can election. There is no

democracy. There is no democracy in

Ukraine right now. There's just not.

Well, they're at war. Yeah.

>> Okay, fine.

>> Fighting for their lives.

>> But we had we had elections when we were

in, you know, the civil war and we were

we were in World War II. We had

elections. I don't know that that's a

great reason.

>> Senator, which is a more democratic

country, Ukraine or Russia?

>> Russia is an authoritarian regime, but I

think David makes some like I'll give

you one example. When we were going,

>> you can't just answer the question. I

mean, you're a senator. I mean, just

you're using Jal, you're using democracy

as a bumper sticker and a buzzword

instead of actually thinking about what

it really means. And actually, if we're

really going to think about what

democracy means, then let's ask what the

people of Ukraine think. That's what to

me democracy means. You actually listen

to the people. Gallup just did a survey

of the people of Ukraine. Let's put

these numbers on on the screen. This is

Gallup. This and this before the Alaska

summits. This was not politically

motivated in any way. And what they

found is that Ukrainians have lost their

appetite for war. Support for the war

has collapsed. A year ago, the support

for the war was in the 60s or 70s. Now

it's collapsed to 24%. So the vast

majority of Ukrainians now want a

resolution to the conflict, even if it

means making concessions.

>> Yeah, I know. I I I wouldn't you can't

dispute this. Of course, they're they've

got war fatigue like they should.

>> This is what democracy means to me is

that we should actually listen to the

desires of the Ukrainian people. Russia

has five times the people, three times

the or three times the people, five

times the amunitions. Um they have an

industrial base. Um this, you know, for

for Ukraine, I think the next step here

is um there has to be a negotiated piece

here. This this can't go on forever.

Europe is not in a position, I think, to

provide what they claim to want to

provide. in the United States of

America. I mean, part of the problem is,

and other people have made this point,

that even if you spent, let's just say

we wanted to spend another hundred

billion dollars, the industrial base

doesn't exist to build all of the stuff

that they need right now anyway. Like,

they have a there's a real problem here.

And I think President Trump campaigned

on the idea of negotiating a piece. I

don't know why that's so controversial

>> when um

>> and I'm not saying from you, I'm saying

but the pundits

>> Yeah.

>> It's like heav you know, the idea, you

know, Russia has nuclear weapons. the

idea that he wouldn't have a one-on-one

conversation.

>> Yeah, that's why I asked that question

like, is there any still manning of this

position that we shouldn't meet with

Putin or, you know, President Xi or Kim

Jong-un? We should obviously meet with

all of them. It makes sense if we have

even a 1% chance of making forward

progress.

When should the United States senator

say, "Uh, enough is enough. We're out.

Figure it out for yourselves." You've

got the EU right there. You got Europe.

They've got plenty of money, but

America's out. If you want to buy some

weapons, we sell weapons. That's fine.

And I think Trump has done an amazing

job of uh enforcing the loan lease that

Biden set these up. So when we keep

saying we're spending a hundred billion,

that's no longer true, right? We're

getting all that money back because

Trump forced Zilinski to uh the

negotiating table. We we're getting all

that money back. But when should we just

so we have clear facts here that it's

not costing the American people you know

this hundreds of billions of dollars

anymore thanks to President Trump deaf

negotiator I'll give him credit where

credit is due but when should you we in

your mind step back and say you know

what not our problem anymore you guys

figure it out because that seemed vice

president JD Vance uh friend of the

pod's position as well at some point we

have to say enough and and Trump sort of

said that too he alluded to that at some

point we're

Are we at that point if this doesn't get

resolved this time around? Do you think?

>> I think yeah, I think that um that's

what this phase is all about, which is

to give a legitimate peace process a

chance. But the idea that that we're

going to be voting on, I mean, I

wouldn't support it. More aid, taxpayer

aid to Ukraine for a war that, you know,

doesn't seem to look like it's ever

going to end and is a blank check is

just unacceptable as a senator for a

state in the United States of America,

right? like it's just not now. President

Trump, I think, has opened up avenues to

to sort of make it clear to both parties

that there's pressure that could be

ramped up to try to bring this to a

head. And I think that's where we're at.

It's not going to all happen today. It's

not going to all happen tomorrow. But

that's really what this diplomacy in

this Tik Tok age that we live in. I

think we think it's instant

gratification. But diplomacy is

difficult when you're dealing with other

countries with their own national

interests and their own sort of inner

dynamics. possible we walk away this

year from the situation? You think?

>> I don't know. I wouldn't want to put a

timet. I would not want to get in front

of the president who's actually sitting

in front of the across the table from

these world leaders. But look,

>> I I think that he's been pretty clear.

This is not our war. It's not our war.

Um this is and but I think that up to

this point, we've wanted to try to

provide um a time and space for a

solution. And I do think if there's

anybody who can do it, it's Trump. Uh

there's nobody else on the planet. I

mean, Mcronone could not broker this. I

mean, you know what I mean? Like, so

it's the last best hope. Uh, my hope is

that you do get to a peace process

because you're just going to have

billions of more people die. Um, and

really,

>> what do you think, Sax? You think we

should walk away if we can't get this

resolved with this latest volley of

negotiations? Or at some point, should

we should the president say enough?

Because he's he seems exacerbated based

on his public statements about this.

He's kind of exacerbated with the two

parties, it seems.

>> Well, look, you're asking me what the

president should do, and I'm not on the

foreign policy team,

>> right?

>> I'm not going to venture and wait into

that, but

>> is it a possibility?

>> I'll just say this.

>> I'll just say this. Listen to what the

Ukrainians want.

>> I mean, Zalinsk's interests may not be

the same as his peoples because as long

as there's a war, there's no election.

They've canceled democracy over there

while the war is going on. Mhm.

>> And as long as that is true, he stays in

power. So he has incentives

that may not be true for all of his

people. His people want a negotiated

peace.

>> And you think if uh they give up the

Dombas and whatever other regions, you

know, are on the table here. Do you

think Putin stops here or do you think

we'll see him invade another country? Do

do you worry about that, Sax? Do you

worry that this is enabling his

behavior, his worst demons? I don't

think the Russians have the intention to

invade another country and they don't

have the capability. Look at how much

trouble they've had. We're now three and

a half years into the war. They're

definitely winning the war, but they've

only conquered this eastern part of

Ukraine. They haven't for them. Yeah.

>> They haven't made it to the Neper. I

don't even think they can conquer all of

Ukraine or at least it' be

extraordinarily difficult and and

resource consuming. So, I just think

that this threat of of Putin conquering

or attempting to invade all of Europe,

this is threat inflation. That's my uh

that's my take away from it, Senator.

It's like Putin couldn't even take

Ukraine. I mean,

>> agree. Look, this is this is part of the

inconsistency of the argument that I've

heard in in the Senate for two and a

half years, which is that he's Hitler,

that he's about ready to march through

Europe, and this is a we can't be

Neville Chamberlain, and this is the

moment, but at the same time, he can't

get to Kiev, right? Like both things

can't be true at the same time. So

again, I think he's supposedly

recruiting North Koreans to fight on the

front line. I mean, like,

>> what? It's so humiliating for him. All

right, listen. Senator, you're welcome

on the pod anytime. Great having you

here. Everybody buy the book. It's out

right now.

>> I don't know if that's the interview you

were expecting, but

>> No, no, we had a He No, I g I I talked

to him before you came on and I said,

"Hey, listen. Keep it not like a

monoculture here like, you know, Tucker

and the senator were like highing the

whole interview." But it was great. It

was a great interview. It's a great

Tucker Classic. You need to have a

little spice here to

>> I love the debate. I love free speech,

which is why I wrote the book, The Last

Line of Defense: How to Beat the Left

Court. Available on Amazon right now.

>> All right, everyone. Check it out.

>> Everybody buy the book. All right,

everybody. We'll see you next time.

Byebye.

>> Great, guys. Thanks.

>> Great job, everybody. It was fun.

[Music]

I'm a moderate, truth be told. But right

now, the left calls me a MAGA and

then the right

>> calls me a litard. So the only thing

they have in common is they both think,

>> right,

>> I'm an idiot, right? Yeah. So I'm uh

>> Well, everybody agrees, then maybe

there's something to it.

>> There could be consensus. You finally

there's your cold open folks.