Morning Wire - Political Border Battle & Instagram’s Child Exploitation Problem | 3.1.24

Episode Date: March 1, 2024

President Biden and former President Trump visit different Texas border towns on the same day, SCOTUS agrees to decide on former President Trump’s immunity claim, and Instagram is accused of allowing parents to peddle sexualized content of their kids to subscribers. Get the facts first with Morning Wire. Balance of Nature: Get 35% off your first order as a preferred customer + free Fiber and Spice supplements. Use promo code WIRE at checkout: https://www.balanceofnature.com/ Ramp: "Now get $250 off when you join Ramp.Go to http://www.ramp.com/WIRE" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Biden and former President Trump made dueling visits to the southern border Thursday, contrasting their policies and assigning blame for the crisis. It's time for the speakers and some of my Republican friends in Congress were blocking this bill to show a little spine. Now the United States is being overrun by the Biden migrant crime. It's a new form of vicious violation to our country. How did their messaging differ and how do Americans feel about the issue? I'm Daily Wire, editor-in-chief John Bickley with Georgia Howe.

It's Friday, March 1st, and this is Morning Wire. The Supreme Court hands Trump a major timeline victory by agreeing to take up his immunity claims. I think ultimately they will not grant immunity in this case, but they have given him the win because the D.C. case, let's just face it, is on life support now. And a new report details how Instagram knowingly allowed parents to peddle sexualized content of their kids via the platform's subscription feature. Thanks for waking up with Morning Wires. Stay tuned. We have the news you need to know.

Hey guys, producer Brandon here. Balance of Nature is our go-to-way to get whole-food ingredients every day. Their capsules are completely void of additives, fillers, extracts, synthetics, pesticides, or added sugar. The only thing in Balance of Nature's fruit and veggie capsules are fruits and veggies.

So experience Balance of Nature for yourself today. Go to BalanceofNature.com and use promo code Wire for 35% off plus a free fiber and spice in your first order preferred customer. That's balance of nature.com promo code wire. There were dueling appearances on the Texas border on Thursday by the two men most likely to square off in November's general election. President Biden visited Brownsville in eastern Texas, while likely GOP nominee Donald Trump traveled to Eagle Pass in the more overwhelmed western

portion of the state. Here to discuss the two events and their potential political fallout as Daily Wire contributor, David Marcus. So let's take these one at a time. What was President Biden hoping to accomplish it at the border, and did he accomplish it? Morning, John. Over the past several months, the White House and Democrats in general have been forced to acknowledge that there is a legitimate crisis at the southern border. Biden had been criticized for only going there once to a cleaned up El Paso during his presidency, so he was due, but the timing also coincides with what the White House in his campaign hope is an effective counter message to Republican attacks, which is that the GOP,

blocked the bipartisan Senate border bill at Donald Trump's behest to help him in the election. I understand my predecessors' in Eagle Pass today. So here's what I would say to Mr. Trump. Join me. Or I'll join you in telling the Congress to pass this bipartisan border security bill, we can do it together. So instead of playing politics with the issue, why do we just get together and get it done? That's the White House talking point for the trip. Now, Republicans, of course, will counter that with the fact, that there are executive actions that Biden could take, and they point directly at the other man who headed down Texas way on Thursday, Donald Trump,

as an example of exactly how to do that. Right. Now, Trump is visiting the Del Rio sector, which has seen far more illegal crossings than Brownsville. What message did Trump bring now that polling shows the border is one of, if not the, top issue for voters? He's going further than simply insisting that his former policies be put back in place, though clearly he and Republicans would welcome that.

He's promising a much stronger border regime in a potential second term. This includes not just stricter control over who enters the country, but also a significant number of deportations. He also wants to build a lot more wall. And on that, the polls have really shifted over the past few years with a solid majority now in favor of that kind of barrier. The bottom line is that Trump knows he's winning big on this issue and he has no intention of taking his foot off the gas on it.

Here's a taste of his remarks. This is a Joe Biden invasion. Last year, almost half of all ICE arrests were criminal aliens charged for more than 33,000 assaults, 3,000 robberies, 6,900 burglaries, 7,500 weapons crimes, and 1,700 homicides and murders. This is all migrant crime. Joe Biden will never say Lake in Riley's name. But we will say it and we will remember it. We're not going to forget. So how much impact might this showdown at the southern border have on voters? Could Biden's messaging change some minds here? Mameth did polling among voters who had heard something about the border bill, and the results are interesting because more people blame Republicans for killing the bill by 36 to 13 percent, but 33 percent opposed the bill while only 23 support it. So there are voters out there who are hearing Biden's argument and saying, yeah, I blame

Republicans for tanking the legislation. Good. I'm glad they did. It looks like Biden wants to stop the bleeding here. We've heard reports that there could be some executive action taken. And that, along with this visit, would be timely, given that the state of the union address is only about a week away. And he's going to have to talk about the border in that speech. Right. You'd think so. Dave, thanks for coming on. Thanks for having me. If you need a better way to simplify your business finances, then you need to check out Ramp. Ramp is the corporate card and spend management software. designed to help you save time and put money back in your pocket. Businesses that use Ramp save an average of 5% in the first year.

And now you get $250 when you join Ramp. Just go to ramp.com slash wire. That's ramp.com slash wire, RAMP.com slash wire. Cards issued by Sutton Bank and Celtic Bank member FDIC. Terms and conditions apply. This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on whether Donald Trump can claim presidential immunity in the election interference cases against him. Here with the latest on what that means for the former president and how a ruling could impact the general election is Daily Wire Senior Editor Cabot Phillips.

So Cabot, a big development out of the Supreme Court. What can you tell us? Yeah, a major update out of D.C. So some quick context to start. Back in August, former President Trump was indicted by Special Counsel Jack Smith on four criminal counts related to his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Now, almost immediately, Trump's legal team filed an appeal to dismiss those charges, arguing that he was protected. from prosecution thanks to the powers of presidential immunity. A federal appeals court in D.C. unanimously rejected that motion, though, earlier this month. So Trump and his team took their appeal to the Supreme Court. And this Wednesday, they announced they would hear the appeal for themselves and make a final

ruling on whether he is immune under the law. So how has the Trump team responded to the development? Well, they are ecstatic, as the announcement was widely regarded as a crucial win for Trump for a few reasons. First, there's a chance they rule in his favor. And that immunity would all but wipe out the least. cases against him. And second, even if they don't grant him immunity, while they're making their decision, the impending trial against him in Washington will be put on hold. That means that even if the

Jack Smith case is allowed to proceed, it likely will not resume until June. And because of the complexities of that case and the massive amount of pretrial work that will be needed, the trial likely will not begin now until August or September. So if that time lane plays out, there's a very real possibility their final verdict would not be reached until after Election Day. That's very important. And According to former federal prosecutor Annie McCarthy, even if they don't grant Trump immunity, they could issue a, quote, ruling that will gut Jack Smith's case substantively,

requiring it to be dropped or overhauled and postpone it indefinitely. Now, Democrats were quick to criticize the Supreme Court for their decision. Nancy Pelosi, for example, accused the court of, quote, placing itself on trial with its decision to hear the former president's total immunity claim. For more on that front, I spoke with Jessica Levinson, a legal expert and law professor at Loyola Marymount University. The Supreme Court's decision to take the case, I know, has been much criticized, but the truth is they take big constitutional questions and matters of first impression.

This is exactly the type of case that they do weigh in on. Now, what sort of argument do we expect to hear from Trump's legal team? Well, the fundamental issue at stake here is whether a president is fully immune from prosecution for anything they did while in office. And importantly, if that immunity also extends their time out of office. The Supreme Court has never made a ruling on a case like this before, so they'll be setting a new precedent that will have sweeping implications for the future. Trump and his team have argued that his efforts to encourage lawmakers not to certify the 2020 election were official actions he took while in office and fell under his authority as president,

meaning they cannot be held against him in court. To that point, here's Levinson again. The former president is going to argue that he's absolutely immune from criminal prosecution based on two main arguments. First is that before any former president or current president is charged criminally, they have to be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

The D.C. Circuit rejected that argument. The other thing that the former president is going to argue is that there are separation of powers concerns and that as the former head of the executive branch, it's inappropriate as a matter of structure in our Constitution for him, to be tried in a federal court, or any court to that matter. So with the general election looming, we get a major hearing in the Supreme Court that's going

to impact the trials against former President Trump. And we are guaranteed a very exciting election season. Cabot, thanks for reporting. Anytime. A new report finds that Instagram has knowingly allowed parents to peddle sexualized images of their children via subscription features. States are now demanding answers from Instagram's owner, Meta. Here with more is Daily Wire Culture reporter, Megan Basham.

So, Megan, not that long ago, the Wall Street Journal covered how rings of pedophiles were using Instagram to connect with one another. Now we have this new report from the New York Times. What did it find? Right. So the journal's story focused on how pedophiles were able to search explicit hashtags that would connect them to accounts that sell illegal pornographic material off of the platform. The New York Times investigation is related to that, but it is somewhat different. So what they found is that parents, mostly moms, have been running accounts on behalf of their children, and they're using META's new subscription service to create a paid clientele of child predators. And since the summer of 2022, they've also been able to sell premium material that you can only access behind a paywall.

Those subscriptions can charge as much as $20 a month, and they provide subscriber-only photos, live video chats, and other add-ons. According to the times, adult men are subscribing to thousands of accounts. accounts run by moms who post photos of children as young as eight in things like bikinis and leotards in suggestive poses. So this is Times reporter Jennifer Valentino DeVries talking about the kind of posts she saw while working on this story. I'm so glad for these new moms pimping their daughters out. As long as this stuff legally exists, I just enjoy it. These are all messages posted by men on telegram groups dedicated to obsessing over images of children. child influencers posted on Instagram by the parents who manage them.

In addition to talking about them in a sexual way, they sometimes justify their behavior to themselves by saying that this is fine because it is on Instagram. And then getting back to the journal's investigation, it reported last week that meta staffers sounded the alarm about this when the subscription service first launched. And they urged the company to either. ban these accounts or set up a registration system that would allow human content moderators to monitor them. The whistleblowers say meta-executive said no and instead went forward with an automated moderating system that is easier to work around. Now, just to clarify, technically,

the content being posted is legal. Correct. The images on Instagram don't include nudity, but they do walk right up to the line. And the meta-wistleblower said it was clear that some parents knew that the images were being viewed for pedophilic reasons and that the moms managing these accounts sometimes engaged in sexual banter with these subscribers about their daughters, and then had the daughters reply to sexual posts. Now, on the other hand, as some of the moms running these accounts actually complained about the number of adult men who were being inappropriate and have said that they've run up against limits on how many accounts they could block in a day, but we should note that doesn't appear to have dissuaded them from continuing to post-profitable

content. Now, the sheer numbers can bring brand advertiser partnerships, so this incentivizes the parents to exploit the child's account even further. The Times said that an audience demographics firm found that 5,000 of these child accounts, again, mostly young girls, have drawn 32 million male followers. And the men will then often move to other encryption apps like Telegram to communicate with the girls and their moms. The Times tracked some of these users. and, as you might expect, discovered that a number of them were registered sex offenders.

Like the journal, the Times also found networks of thousands of men on Telegram who then share information about which mom-run accounts seem open to selling private images. So essentially, experts say that Instagram is feeding

social media's child exploitation problem. Now, how has Meta responded to the Times investigation? Well, a meta spokesman told the Times that it's dedicated 40,000 employees and $20 billion to safety since 2016. Meta staffers, though, told the times that the problem has overwhelmed the platform and quoting, there are not enough people, resources, and systems to tackle all of it.

Well, we've seen how fast they respond to other types of misinformation. Yes. Megan, thanks for reporting. Anytime. Thanks for waking up with us. We'll be back later this afternoon with more news you need to know.