The Leak That Could Shatter the Supreme Court with Mike Davis

The Leak That Could Shatter the Supreme Court with Mike Davis

Listen here

Full Transcript:

[00:00:00] Hey, everybody, what is the Supreme Court leak mean for our country? We dove into that with Mike Davis from the Article three project. And also Alejandro Mayorkas defends the new disinformation effort. You can email me your thoughts as always, freedom at and get involved with Turning Point USA at TPUSA. TPUSA. Com is your place where you can get engaged and get involved by starting high school or college chapters on the front lines to help win the American culture war. TPUSA Tom. That is TPUSA Tom. Turning Point USA is the place that you should be engaged and to be involved. And TPUSA. Email me your thoughts as always. Freedom at Freedom at Support the Charlie Kirk Show at Slash support that is Slash support. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. [00:00:50][50.8]

[00:00:51] Charlie, what you’ve done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to. Know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk’s running the White House, folks. I want to thank. Charlie’s an incredible guy, his spirit, his love of this country. He’s done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created Turning Point USA. [00:01:11][20.3]

[00:01:12] We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That’s why we are here. Brought to you by Andrew and Todd of Sierra Pacific Mortgage for personalized loan services you can count on go to Andrew and Todd dot com. The wonderful Andrew and Todd dot com. Yesterday we were diving into how the United States Supreme Court has suffered I guess is the best word to use. An unprecedented leak from who? We do not know. We think we know. But the person who is best able to describe this and articulate it is the head of a wonderful organization called the Article three Project. That’s article number three Project Dawg. And it is the terrific Mike Davis. Mike, welcome back to the program. [00:02:07][55.0]

[00:02:08] Thank you for having me back on, Charlie. [00:02:09][1.3]

[00:02:10] So, Mike, how are we what are we supposed to make of this? The US Supreme Court is leaking decisions before they happen. First of all, who could potentially do something like this? Do we know who probably did this? And if so, what is the proper course of action to hold that person accountable? [00:02:25][15.2]

[00:02:27] So I clerked for Justice Gorsuch on the Supreme Court, and I also served as the chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee. And my part of my portfolio was oversight over the federal judiciary. I have never heard anything like what happens with this leak. I don’t think it’s ever happens that a draft majority opinion for a Supreme Court case has leaked out prior to the court issuing the opinion, especially in a case this monumental. This is the Dobbs case, where it looks like the at least five, maybe six justices on the Supreme Court are going to overturn Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood versus Casey and return abortion regulations back to the states where it belongs. This is a stunning breach of protocol there. Each of the nine Supreme Court justices have four law clerks. Each of them have generally 2 to 3 administrative aides. It is a very small universe of people who have access to these draft opinions. And these opinions have to circulate among the justices because they have to work together. They have to collaborate in order to draft majority opinions, dissenting opinions and concurring opinions. And if you shatter that trust, if you shatter that secrecy, that bad confidence in the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court could no longer function. [00:03:50][82.7]

[00:03:51] Right. So who potentially could do something like a clerk or just someone in kind of that orbit and what could be done to hold this person accountable for leaking this decision? [00:04:02][10.7]

[00:04:03] Well, like I said, there are a very limited number of people who have access to these to these draft opinions that nine Supreme Court justices, each of their four law clerks in each of their 2 to 3 administrative aides, maybe 80 people, but I doubt it. There is an intranet system in the Supreme Court that’s not even connected to the to the outside world. It’s not connected to the Internet where they draft and circulate these opinions. So it looks like to me, if I had my hunch, I would say that a disgruntled blog clerk printed this and gave it to the political reporter. If you look at that, if you look at the the draft opinion The Politico published, it looked like a printed and scanned opinion. It is a draft majority opinion by Justice Alito. What I would do if I were the chief justice of the Supreme Court, of chief justice of the United States, has already ordered the marshal of the Supreme Court to investigate this. The marshal is a Supreme Court officer. This person is the head law enforcement officer for the Supreme Court. This person runs the Supreme Court. Please. The Supreme Court actually has its own police force of nearly 200 police officers. They can investigate this if they need additional help. They can call in the U.S. Marshal Service from the Justice Department and deputize them to help with this investigation. The U.S. Marshal Service has worked very closely with federal judges protecting them, protecting federal courthouses for over a century. So that’s the most likely federal agency who could step in if needed. I would just caution that we do not. The political branch. Branch is sticking their nose into this investigation without the court’s permission because you don’t want to set a precedent where Congress or the Biden White House or any other White House thinks that they can battle and the internal and the internal operations of an independent branch of government, especially the Supreme Court. So I think the chief justice is going to get to the bottom of this. I think that’s through the marshal. I think what they’re going to do is they’re going to interview every single one of these law clerks and employees, other employees, and they’re going to have these if they make a false statement to these federal investigators. It’s a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, which is a felony. Whoever leaked this is in serious, serious trouble. If it’s a lawyer, they’re going to get fired. They’re going to get disbarred and they might be prosecuted. You could prosecute this person for potentially misuse or even stolen federal property that did not belong to them to give out to a reporter. Another thing that you can look at is potentially obstruction of justice. If you are leaking out a draft opinion for the purposes of illegally leaking it, for the purposes of putting political or or illegal pressure on a Supreme Court justice to change their vote on a pending case that is obstruction of justice. [00:06:51][168.7]

[00:06:53] Yeah, I mean, I agree with you. I don’t want to see meddling from other branches of government, but hasn’t that already happened? I mean, I find it hard to believe this person acted independently. Maybe they did and they leak it to Politico, which is just suspicious in and of itself. And so the calculus here is maybe we can get enough angry people upset about the decision that the rancor will make the justices change their mind. I think that’s the calculus here, which is basically a complete and total undermining of Article three of the U.S. Constitution, the idea of an independent judiciary, if this as it stands today, basically they’re trying to make the judiciary independent no more. Isn’t that right? [00:07:32][39.1]

[00:07:33] Yeah. I mean, this is a direct inside job attack on the independence of the federal judiciary, including the highest court in the land. This is this is as serious as it gets. You like it is. It is unheard of. It’s unprecedented for a draft Supreme Court opinion to leak out like this. And these it’s it shatters trusted shatters confidence. It is a direct assault on judicial independence. And they must find out who did this. And they must hold this person accountable to the fullest extent of the law. [00:08:06][33.1]

[00:08:06] So so let me ask you a question. How likely is it that the final decision will be the same as the draft decision? Having clerked and having gone through that? Do you think now there’s a chance that they change their mind, or do you think that the draft was actually not as certain as we might have believed? Do you have any insight into that? [00:08:27][20.7]

[00:08:28] Yeah. I mean, I don’t have any insight into this particular case because I don’t talk to justices or court employees, including the clerks, about current cases. That would be inappropriate. But I will tell you just how the process is generally worked is the first draft comes out and then the justices collaborate, which is it improves the draft. You maybe maybe one of the justices in there, clerks, catches a mistake and they they go through that editing process and it circulates for a long time. It circulates for several weeks. And then the dissenting justices write their draft and circulated the concurring justices write their draft and circulate it. But I will say this. If the intended effect was to get justices to change their votes, maybe waffling conservative justices to back away from a five or six vote majority to overturn Roe versus Wade in Casey, I think this leak is going to have the exact opposite effect. Now, justices could not condone this, but likely illegal behavior. They cannot reward it by changing their vote. I think for judicial independence, they need to stay firm. [00:09:35][67.8]

[00:09:37] Yeah, I think that’s exactly right. I think that this was a last ditch effort. I also I’ve been underwhelmed by the protests, by the way, not to say that they can’t get out of control after what we saw with Floyd and that whole thing kind of post Floyd. But I mean, they’ve just kind of the same sort of liberal activists kind of screaming with their signs like, okay. But I also think they aren’t. They hurt their cause, right? They hurt their cause by all of a sudden losing the moral high ground by saying we’re going to leak decisions to try to decide this in the streets. Like, I don’t think most Americans are actually okay with that. I think I think they’re repulsed by it regardless of their opinions on abortion. Obviously, I’m very pro-life, but I agree. I think that Kavanaugh, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, I think they’re like, you’re trying to make us change our vote. Why? Like, no, actually, I’m going to double down on it. Right. There might be some changes to the actual language of the opinion, but anyone that wants to protect. The integrity of the court, which should just be totally and completely repulsed by this. So, Mike, can you explain to our audience that this decision in its current form, draft opinion does not outlaw abortion. Instead, it brings it back to the states. This is really a states rights argument. Can you help build that out for our audience, please? [00:10:54][77.7]

[00:10:55] Yeah. I mean, if you look at what our United States Constitution is, it is a loan agreement between we, the people and our federal governments. And what it does is we loan the federal government specific and enumerated powers in exchange for the federal government promising to protect our liberties. And if we if we the people did not put on paper that the federal government has specific and enumerated powers, the federal government does not have those powers, or at least that’s the way it was supposed to work before the Liberals took over the federal judiciary 90 years ago and flipped it on its head. And so if you but if you look at the Constitution, nowhere in the Constitution is abortion mentioned. So therefore, the federal government doesn’t have the power to regulate abortion that belongs to the states and the people. Stop you before 50 years ago, 49 years ago, before Roe versus Wade was decided in 1973, the states got to decide abortion regulations through the Democrat process. So if you’re in a liberal state, you had abortions, and if you were in a conservative state, you had less access to abortions. And what happened with Roe versus Wade is the Supreme Court came in. A liberal liberal justices on the Supreme Court just made up this federal constitutional preemption of every abortion law in this country. And they federalized it. And they did that for 49 years. And it created chaos. It created this unnecessary division and chaos for the last 49 years. And what what the Supreme Court looks like it’s going to do with Justice Alito’s opinion is they’re going to correct this wrong, that abortion was regulated by states for the first 200 years of the American republic. It wasn’t until liberal judicial activist hijacked the federal judiciary, you know, starting 90 years ago, and then Roe versus Wade, you know, nearly 50 years ago that they create they just made up this federal constitutional preemption, saying that states couldn’t even regulate abortion. It was nonsense. It’s part it’s constitutional garbage and it’s about to be thrown out the door. That doesn’t mean that abortion is going to be outlawed across the country. It just means that in some states it’s going to be you’re going to have more access than other states. [00:13:13][138.1]

[00:13:14] Can you talk about how this could have ramifications on other decisions? Could this possibly go after Obergefell? I always mispronounce it. Sorry. Obergefell, whatever the gay marriage decision. Yeah. I mean, basically, are we seeing kind of a revival back to states rights? Because that’s another decision where marriage was defined by 25 plus states and it became nationalized and federalized. In fact, I make the argument this de-radicalize is the country when it becomes local governance, right? If you want to live in a pro-life state and live in a pro-life state, so can you kind of walk through how this might have precedent for other areas of legal interpretation? [00:13:53][38.9]

[00:13:54] So if you look at those, if you look at those areas that deals with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, there is a 14th there’s an equal protection component to Roe versus Wade. But it’s really just made up. I mean, it’s just made up. They talk about numbers and nominations, all of these zones of privacy throughout these various constitutional amendments. Basically, they just it’s constitutional mush is what they did to create the zone of privacy large enough to to to encompass the right to a you know, to kill your unborn child is essentially what Roe versus Wade came up with. I don’t think Obergefell is on the chopping block any time soon. I think that’s it’s it’s just different it’s it’s handled different doctrinally through the constitutional analysis than Roe was done. [00:14:44][49.5]

[00:14:45] Got it. Well, very helpful. Article three, Project Talk, that’s a three in the number. So check it out. Article three, Project Talk. Mike, thank you so much for joining us. [00:14:52][7.0]

[00:14:52] Thanks for having me back on, Charlie. [00:14:53][1.0]

[00:14:54] Thank you. Look, over the years, you’ve probably tried difficult investments in stocks and mutual funds. So, you know, they could be volatile and unpredictable. But with inflation running at the highest rate of 40 years, do you want volatility and uncertainty? Being able to sleep at night, knowing where your money actually is, it’s worth its weight in gold. And speaking of gold, if you’ve been jumping from one investment to the other, a gold IRA from Noble Gold might be perfect for you. A reliable hedge against inflation just fell into our laps. With gold, you shield yourself from gains in taxes, you keep the real value of your wealth. You own a global asset. It’s something tangible. And protect your wealth against an economic crash. I. And Golden, you should as well. So what’s not to like? And this month, for every gold I.R.A. above $20,000, you’ll get an incredible three ounce silver American Virtue coin. Completely free as a thank you. Call eight, seven, seven, 646 5347. Now to find out more at noble gold investment scheme that’s noble gold investment scheme noble gold investments AECOM. One of the nation’s top law enforcement officers is supposed to be the head of the Department of Homeland Security. So DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, was formed after 911, did not exist prior to 911. It was a response saying that, okay, we need a new federal government agency to try to mess up what we did on 911. Now, mind you, 911 was largely an immigration failure. 911 was largely a failure to screen people coming in to America and not having proper or prudent immigration policies. It’s less about screening people at the TSA with the TSA at the airport. Now, I have to say this. I have a lot of people that recognize me that are TSA agents. They’re wonderful people. I mean that. But the TSA is not a wonderful agency. It’s a terrible agency. It’s awful. I wish the best for those people that are so kind and they’re so nice to me. Not all of them are. But you got to find something else to do. One of the things people say, Charlie, if you were king for a day, well, it’s one of the first things you would do. I’d privatize the TSA and get it out of our life has very little I think it has almost no national security upside and it destroys people’s time travel. You know how many hours I’ve lost of my life going through those lines? I think that I mean, I really think it’s thousands of hours at this point. That’s a lot of time. The government doesn’t just rob my money. It robs me of my privacy and rising and the hours. I mean, you fly out of any airport that’s major LAX or Phenix, it is an absolute disaster. Okay. So DHS was formed. They oversee TSA, they do that and properly they oversee the southern border. They do that really poorly. And now they’re kind of new thing is they’re going to fight disinformation in all of its forms. So we played kind of the tape of the super weird girl that is now running the Department of Homeland Security Disinformation Board. Her name is Nina Jankewitz. Do we have the do we have the video of her singing? It’s just kind of a reminder because kind of a refresher of who we’re dealing with here. So she’s again, I feel like I know her. I grew up with people like her. Very snarky, very smug. Everything’s ironic and sarcastic. You’re kind of the the no matter what, you’re in a conversation with your family or friends, but it’s always just kind of has to be a sharp kind of one liner. You know, you can never find yourself in total agreement or harmony with whatever the kind of consensus is. It has to just be like, Oh, but have you read Herbert Marquesa? Or Oh, have you read like Jacques Derrida or Michel Foucault or whatever? Right. It’s just kind of always a snarky one liner in response. So she’s a big Harry Potter fan. She has these really creepy and disturbing videos where she just sings and says really weird stuff. So now she’s in charge of all this information in our country, and so do we have a clip to that one or we’re getting that cued up. So this is her singing the Mary Poppins song and kind of talking about disinformation. Now, again, we can kind of put the whole thing that like China’s laughing at us now. They’ve stopped laughing and they just know they’re going to take us over when they say when they see stuff like this, okay, this is cut 55. [00:19:13][258.6]

[00:19:14] Information laundering is really quite ferocious. It’s when a huckster takes them lies and makes them sound precocious by saying them in Congress or in mainstream outlets. [00:19:22][8.4]

[00:19:22] So this information’s origins are slightly less atrocious. It’s how you hide the lie, big lie. It’s how you hide a little tiny lie. It’s how you hide a little. Like those lies. [00:19:32][9.8]

[00:19:32] And Rudy Giuliani shared that income from Ukraine when tick tock consequences they covered can’t cause pain. They’re laundering disinfo. When we really should take note and not support their lies, we thought. [00:19:43][10.9]

[00:19:44] Well, it might help. Now, mind you, this is her spreading disinformation. She’s spreading disinformation that the laptop was actually Russian disinformation. Now, she wasn’t taken down from TikTok, obviously, for doing that entire performance. Now, you just heard that you’re probably driving in your car or listening to us while you’re working out like, well, that’s not a serious person. But here’s Alejandro Mayorkas, the head of DHS, saying. Nina Jankewitz, she’s a renowned expert in the field of disinformation. [00:20:13][29.2]

[00:20:14] PICHOT Three Republicans are criticizing your decision, the administration’s decision to choose Nina Jankewitz to lead this disinformation board. They say she is not somebody who is neutral. Your response? [00:20:27][13.5]

[00:20:28] Eminently qualified, a renowned expert in the field of disease and nutrition. Absolutely. [00:20:33][5.2]

[00:20:34] So eminently qualified. A renowned expert. This keep on saying this stuff and there’s just no basis for this at all. Mallorca should be in prison for what he’s doing to America, by the way. It is a crime to keep America’s southern border open. But this is an important point, which is the left has now developed a backup plan. They’ve developed a backup plan to kind of their social media censorship regime. Now, the smart people on the left and there’s not a lot of them, they kind of saw this coming. They saw all of a sudden post January six, when Donald Trump got kicked off social media, that the idea of spreading information online freely through sites like Rumble and other places, that it was going to kind of be a short lived thing to be just have a couple of different monopolies. Now, mind you, none of this that you are seeing unfold is a mistake. The left is now going to put on there. We must break up companies. We must regulate tech companies immediately. Why? Because of Donald Trump’s truth, social, because of rumble, and because of Elon Musk buying Twitter. The fact they no longer control these companies. Is now a mandate for them to try to censor these companies, you see. They didn’t want to break up Twitter. They didn’t want to break up Facebook when they got what they wanted, when they got $400 million of money from Mark Zuckerberg to fund mail in ballots. They didn’t want to break up Facebook when Twitter was rejecting the Hunter Biden laptop story. They were perfectly appreciative of Twitter. But now CNN. Says Look, we need to regulate these companies. Play. Cut to. [00:22:13][99.0]

[00:22:14] No. I think there’s a bigger problem that when we focus on the personalities of people like Elon Musk and people say, oh, I think Gillan’s thinking this or that. There’s a bigger problem here about how we are going to control the channels of communication in this country. This is dangerous. We can’t think any more in this country. We don’t have people know I’m serious. We don’t have people in Congress who can make regulations that can make it work. I think we can look to the Western countries in Europe for how they are trying to limit it. But you need you need controls on this. You need regulation. You cannot let these guys control discourse in this country or we are headed to hell. We are there. Trump opened the gates of hell now where they’re chasing us. [00:22:56][41.7]

[00:22:58] We need a control quote. We need a controlled discourse in this country. This weird lunatic by the name of Davids or Wallach, whatever his name is on CNN, says, Now, mind you, this is a gift to Google and Facebook. Google and Facebook have wanted for a while to be regulated. That’s right. Google and Facebook have wanted a very specific time of regulation. Remember, regulation, especially vast amounts of regulation, is a way to protect the incumbent advantage of a major company. It’s just a rounding error to have to deal with more regulation at Facebook. But more regulation could crush truth social. More regulation could crush get far more regulation could crush. Rumble. And so now they want it. They want to protect Facebook because they’re still somewhat helpful to the regime. They want to protect Google, but now they want to crush Twitter. Twitter is no longer helpful to them. It will be in the short term. But as soon as Elon Musk gets his way with Twitter, it’s going to be a direct threat. So they’re going to want to now regulate it. Remember when Obama floated this out saying social media censors, they don’t go far enough. Play cut 12. [00:24:08][70.4]

[00:24:10] Talking to people at these companies. I believe they are sincere in trying to limit content that engages in hate speech, encourages violence, or poses a threat to public safety. But while content moderation can limit the distribution of clearly dangerous content. [00:24:29][18.1]

[00:24:30] It doesn’t go far enough. [00:24:31][0.9]

[00:24:33] It doesn’t go far enough. So what they want basically is a disinformation board that has now been created by the Department of Homeland Security to determine which social media companies are favorable and which ones are unfavorable. So the question, I think and Glenn Greenwald posed this question, I really want to have him on the program to talk about this. What is a disinformation expert exactly like? What is that? Does it require a particular degree or life experience? Is there a licensing board or some sort of official certification? What credentials, scholarship or accomplishments are needed to justify being lavished with such a pompous label? It’s nonsense. Now, mind you. She’s the one that actually peddles disinformation, that make her an expert, kind of like someone needs to be part of the mob is also kind of like a mob expert when they do those shows on CNBC. Like, here’s Jerry and he’s a mob expert because he used to be a bagman for the mob. Like, okay, I guess. Is that her? I don’t know. What exactly does it mean? What it does mean is that she’ll be loyal to the regime. That’s what it does. What it means is that she will put opinions forward to censor ideas and opinions they don’t like. So you might say, Charlie. Okay, what’s the big deal here? Let’s use an example. If this disinformation board was up and running a couple of months ago, they would have censored all conversation around ivermectin. If this disinformation board was up and running, they would have censored all conversation around Ukrainian bio labs. The disinformation board that this woman now runs, the Department of Homeland Security, we call it the Ministry of Truth, will be positioned precisely to try to stunt opposing ideas to the corporate oligarchy. That’s really what the free internet was always supposed to be about. The free Internet was supposed to let the best ideas win. Let’s have them compete. Let’s have them go one up against one another. Instead, they don’t want a free Internet. Free Internet is actually a direct. A front. To the exact type of country that they want us to live in. Majorca says the group that he has put together is going to safeguard the right to free speech play cut for. [00:26:44][131.4]

[00:26:45] I believe that this working group that gathers together, gathers together best practices, makes sure that our work is coordinated consistent with those best practices, that we’re safeguarding the right of free speech, that we’re safeguarding civil liberties. I think it’s an extraordinarily important endeavor. [00:27:03][18.0]

[00:27:05] Extraordinarily important endeavor. The woman that they just installed with all of this power does not appear to have been vetted critically in the slightest in any way whatsoever. Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here with the left in total panic over Twitter and DHS essentially creating their own ministry of truth. It is safe to say we’re facing the biggest threat to the First Amendment in our lifetime. That’s why I’m proud to support Patriot Mobile, America’s only Christian conservative cell phone provider. They offer broad, nationwide coverage to you at the same great service that funding the major carriers who donate to the left. Patriot Mobile has plans for any budget and their US based customer support team provides exceptional customer service. Most importantly, Patriot Mobile shares your values and supports organizations fighting for religious freedom, constitutional rights and the sanctity of life. Make the switch today. Got a patriot mobile dot com slash Charlie. Or call 972 patriot. Get free activation with the offer code Charlie. That’s patriot mobile dot com slash Charlie. They also have special discounts for our veteran and first responder heroes. That’s patriot mobile dot com slash Charlie or call 972 patriot patriot mobile dot com slash Charlie. Or call 972 patriot patriot mobile dot com slash Charlie. Again, that is patriot mobile dot com slash Charlie. Or call 972 patriot patriot mobile dot com slash Charlie. Okay. I want to get to some sound here. So Nina Jankewitz is now in charge of censoring people speech from the federal government. But before she said that the executive branch shouldn’t have the power to determine what is fake news play cut 16. [00:28:33][88.6]

[00:28:34] Imagine that. You know, with President Trump right now calling all of these news organizations that have inconvenient for him, stories that they that they’re getting out there, that he’s calling fake news and now lashing out at platforms. I would never want to see our executive branch have that sort of power. [00:28:52][17.7]

[00:28:54] She reminds me of Pete Boudin, Judge Ramsey, a British judge, because she was created in the academy and for a very specific purpose. She was created in the academy because she’s there. She’s basically like a somebody that is there in the branch of government that will never question the hierarchy that his someone within the workings and almost has like a robot, a robotic type of focus on one issue. It’s like you think about it, a disinformation expert, somebody in power picked up Nina Jankewitz a couple of years ago, saw that she had some I guess I don’t quite understand. I don’t quite know the word skill, I guess. But she was very likely to obey. Right. She wanted approval. I think Nina Jankewitz wants approval by other people. And she had she had an unflinching loyalty to the party line. Someone saw that she had a lot of potential for that. So someone obviously decided to get Nina Jankewitz in the right positions, working on the Ukraine desk, working in all sorts of places that eventually Nina Jankewitz could have an over promotion, just like Pete, but a judge, Mayor Pete. And they go to these type elite schools. They never say anything disagreeable to the consensus and they’re honestly quite boring. Like if you sat down with people to judge or Nina Jankewitz, they wouldn’t really have an interesting, unique thought, right? They just kind of regurgitate with other people would say they are craft. They crafted her into this position. For a purpose. Somebody created her. She is a creation of something or somebody. Some. Some media machine. Some academic machine or the national security state. They saw Nina Jankewitz and they said, wow, is she boring? Why would she be loyal? She’s incredibly obedient. And she has probably, you know, a big desire to be liked. And I just kind of wonder who she publicly declares her mentor to be. Maybe Jim Clapper. I don’t know. Or Gina Haspel. Somebody. Somebody. I’m not going to use actually. Somebody groomed her. Okay. Not in the way that we’ve been time at last couple of weeks. But it’s true. Somebody. She’s she what is she like 32 or three, is that right? She’s 33 and she’s running like the entire kind of conversation, disinformation when she herself spreads disinformation. Thank you so much for listening. Everybody emails your thoughts, as always, freedom at Thank you so much for listening. God bless. [00:31:29][155.9]

[00:31:32] For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to [00:31:32][0.0]



Join the Newsletter