The Tucker Carlson Show - Sen. Eric Schmitt: FBI and DOJ Corruption, and How Politicized Judges Are Undermining America

Episode Date: August 13, 2025

Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri was once an attorney general, so he understands that politicized judges are the real threat to American democracy. (00:00) Is the Senate Broken? (07:17) Why Congress Gave Away All Their Power to the Courts (35:26) How Is Anthony Fauci Not in Jail? (55:35) Why Do We Import All Our Pharmaceuticals From China? (59:59) Why Aren’t the DOJ and FBI Doing Their Jobs? US Senator Eric Schmitt is a 6th generation Missourian and previously served as Missouri Attorney General where he led consequential lawsuits against the Biden Administration. A first-term senator, Schmitt has emerged as a key ally for President Trump and Vice President Vance in Congress and is passionate about protecting Americans’ freedoms, combating mass migration, strengthening our national security, preventing US tax dollars from being wasted on never-ending wars overseas, and restoring American exceptionalism. His new book “The Last Line of Defense: How to Beat the Left in Court” is out on August 19 and available for preorder now: https://a.co/d/1wgmq28 Paid partnerships with: Joi + Blokes: Go to https://joiandblokes.com/tucker to get 20% off all products and therapies with code TUCKER MeriwetherFarms: Visit https://MeriwetherFarms.com/Tucker and use code TUCKER for 15% off your first order. Eight Sleep: Get $350 off the new Pod 5 Ultra at https://EightSleep.com/Tucker Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

So you were attorney general of the state of Missouri for four years, and you've been in the Senate for three? Yeah, almost three. Almost three. What job was more powerful? Well, I think the Senate is sort of the apex of how you can affect a number of things, but the Senate in many ways is kind of broken the way it's currently constituted. And it's the, you know, proclaimed to be the world's most deliberative body, but a lot of its kabuki theater, honestly. But I think in the time in which I served as Attorney General when you had a Democrat president, you could affect a lot of things by challenging the extremism we saw from the Biden administration in court and win. And you didn't need to ask anybody's permission for that.

You could just make that decision. You didn't need 50 other people to vote for it. So I think for me at that time, it was a critical moment in our country's history. And I just happened to be in that position at that time. And you got to remember, too, I think, if you take a step back, President Trump was out of office. And so this responsibility sort of fell to a relatively unknown group of people to kind of hold the line, which is why, you know, the last line of defense and how to beat the left in court is the title of the book. Because I felt like we were really holding the line for the country until reinforcements could come. And thankfully, they came with President Trump.

It's just interesting. And you were principled and very aggressive, which are the two, I think, qualities necessarily succeed in it, really in any job. But the reason I ask the question is because serving in the Senate is, you know, it's the highest level for a legislator. You travel to any country in the world. You go through the, you know, diplomatic airport terminal. You get a motorcade. I mean, it's a big deal to be a U.S. senator. But it does seem like the center of gravity has shifted from the legislative branch to the courts.

I mean, it does seem like courts have more power than voters. I'm not, will you flush that out a little bit since you've had both jobs? Yeah, no, I think it is a, and one of the reasons why. I wanted to write the book was to, number one, lay out the landscape, because in that job, you saw, I saw, the threats that were coming from all directions, from the highest levels of government and the censorship enterprise that was created by Biden and big tech companies, to the local superintendent that somehow got bought into this training that you divide every classroom by race through critical race theory. So you got to see that entirety of the landscape. And take action. In detail. In detail. And take action.

And that is what I loved about the job is if you were committed to taking action, you can make a difference. And that was happening in the court. So to answer your question, I think conservatives for a long time have viewed the courts as sort of the, where the left wins, where they cement their policies because judges sort of make it up as they go along. I do think there's an opportunity now, especially after Trump's first term. when he appointed 200 plus federal judges and now in the second term where you're going to have more members of the judiciary the view the law as it is, not how they want it to be.

But that also requires people to step up and push back. And you know, you just think of the wins that we were able to have like preventing 100 million people being forced to be vaccinated because OSHA, which was a, you know, an agency created to make sure forklifts beep when they back up somehow created this rule that 100 million people had to be, vaccinated to keep their jobs. You just think of the guy that's like swinging the hammer. It just wants to feed his family. He had to do that to keep his job. It's totally insane. So we went to the

Supreme Court on that. We won. Of course, the student loan debt forgiveness case. Missouri had a little known loan servicing agency called Mojila that gave us standing to sue. Our argument was, look, Mojila's this loan servicing agency. If you eliminate all the student loan debt, which he wasn't allowed to do by law, that might go out of business. Therefore, we had standing to bring suit to challenge Biden's action, and we won. The Supreme Court said, yeah, Joe Biden and the Secretary of Education didn't have any authority to wipe away

a half a trillion dollars worth of debt. So we took that to the Supreme Court. We won. We had some wins on the border wall to save that off as long as we could, even though ultimately this mass migration plan that Joe Biden had came through. But I think probably the biggest example

was, you know, we intuitively knew that something was happening inside the Biden administration to suppress speech. And we filed that lawsuit in May of 2022. And we sought discovery first before we saw it a preliminary injunction. That was an important strategic decision. And the judge granted it. And because of that, we saw all of the emails.

We saw all of the text messages. This vast censorship enterprise that had been created was exposed. And this was before Elon Muskby's Twitter. It's before you had the congressional hearings. And I think, you know, being able to draw attention to that and flesh out the truth through our court system was a really important thing to do. So yes, I think this is a front that we have to fight in. And that's what this is. This is sort of like, hey, we took on, when school districts were forcing five-year-olds to wear a mass all day long, we sued 65 school districts in the state of Missouri.

And we won. When the biggest cities in Missouri were forcing people to wear masks all day long and close businesses, we sued and we won. When we took on ESG, we launched an investigation against some of the biggest banks in the world who controlled nearly half of the assets in this country. We opened up an investigation because we were saying that their actions violated antitrust laws. They backed away. So really the story, I think, is there requires a lot of courage. right, to go do this stuff. But if you do it, you find out that when you're in the arena,

what people are really looking for is authentic leadership, right? People can spot a phony. And if you really believe this stuff and you're fighting for the people, the kid who's having to wear the mask or the deaf student who couldn't learn, we would get reports of these things that were happening in school districts that you can fight for those people. And as attorney general, I was able to go do that and we were able to score some big wins. And also, it lays out, I think, a playbook for the future.

because this isn't the last of it. You already see the, you know, the left-wing lawfare machine coming out to try to stop President Trump's agenda, which is inherently disruptive of the status quo, which is a good thing. So they want the status quo to come back. We want things to change, and you're going to need people who are aggressive to defend those things, too. It's also a really sad story. I want to because none of this should have to happen when I ask you about the details, particularly of the censorship regime in a moment,

But first, it just seems like an attorney general and an ideal society would be fighting crime. Yeah. Not trying to push back on social policy changes made in the courts. Like that's the legislative branch's job because it's the most democratic arm of government, obviously. So it reflects most precisely what the people want. How do we get to a place where every big social change from abortion to gay marriage to censorship to COVID? All of this stuff is determined in the courts. And where the hell is Congress?

Right. Well, Congress has abdicated its responsibility to a lot of these administrative agencies over the decades, right? And so, honestly, some of the court actions that you take on, like, you know, this is a little bit in the weeds, but the Chevron deference that existed where essentially the court said, yeah, we're going to defer to these agencies because they're the so-called experts. Well, that got blown up, and that's a good thing now. In Congress, Congress actually now has to write laws that are more prescriptive. We should. We should do that. But Congress has abdicated its responsibility for a couple of reasons.

but most notably, I think, because they're able to say, many congressmen are able to say, I voted for this greatest bill in the world, but I can't believe what the EPA just did. Well, that's not good enough anymore, I don't think, right? You've got to rein in the authority of these agencies that have gone completely rogue. And it kind of starts with Woodrow Wilson in this progressive era. It's hypercharged by FDR and then this monstrosity, by the way, which has existed and grown in Republican and Democrat administrations over the years. one of the things I think that's most exciting about what President Trump is doing is he put together this group of disruptors to disrupt that. But look at the hue and cry that comes out in D.C. when you're trying to like pare down the size of government, people lose their minds.

And why, again, the courts are going to be really important here because President Trump and whoever the executive is certainly has Article 2 core powers to control programming and personnel, right? and the Democrats don't want him to go do that. Now, the good news is he's, by and large, won these cases. There might be a district court case here or there, but that ultimately, as it makes its way to the appellate courts, the Supreme Court, President Trump is winning on this front. So, again, I think it's a testament to the idea. We have to be willing to fight,

whether it's in the legislative branch, in the executive branch, or in the Article III branch, for the things that we hold deer in this country, because they're constantly under assault by the left. That's for sure. It's pretty obvious now that this country is getting weaker than ever, meaning the population is unhealthier. That's what Maha is about, trying to counteract this long-term trend that's culminated

in a disaster. Americans are so unhealthy, we can't staff the military. And it's really, really sad. Why is this happening? Maybe because sick people are easier to control. Whatever the reason, there are answers to it. One of them is Joy and Bloaks. They are revolutionizing supplements with smart supplements are personalized for you. They're based entirely. on your genetics, your biomarker data, they're not guessing. So they use labs, advanced labs, that measure up to 110 key biomarkers. Then their clinicians design a precision supplement plan that's updated as your body changes. So it's not just off-the-shelf vitamins.

It's much more precise and therefore much more effective. So there are about three billion possible combinations. And the effect is you get exactly what you need and you get nothing that you don't need. You also get 60 to 30-minute consultation, depending how much time you need. You get access to expert guided hormone care, including testosterone and optimization for both men and women, longevity medicine, cutting-edge peptide therapy, and you get it all from home. Right now, new customers get 50% off all diagnostic labs, plus 20% off all products and therapies. You also get a free 15-minute health coach consult. And the effect is the desired effect, stronger, sharper, more than.

energy, you get it right away. Go to Joy and Blokes, J-O-I-N-Blox.com slash Tucker, root cause medicine. It's the way health care ought to be. But the net effect is to convince people in a way that was not true. And I was a kid that the courts are political. Even the highest court is fundamentally a political body, which maybe has always been true. But it does seem a little scary when everyone thinks that. Because, I mean, it used to be if there's Supreme Court, you know, decision you have to abide by it whether you like it or not yeah but if people think it's all just partisan then maybe they stop obeying yeah but i think that's again why um and i referenced this in the book when i was sort of coming of age when i went to law school people were still talking about

this thing called the living constitution which is a fiction right it should be um and scalia was the first one who wrote with this sort of dramatic prose about originalism and i think that's our best hope moving forward is the Constitution means exactly what it says, nothing more, nothing less, right? It shouldn't be, the Supreme Court shouldn't be the super legislator, which is what the left is traditionally wanted. You take Roe versus Wade, for example, right? He sort of invented this right out of whole cloth and took that decision away from the people, as this is supposed to be decided in the states by legislatures, and now we're kind of back to that. So my hope is that as you have a more conservative court, it's not about our ideology winning because

somebody's wearing a red jersey or a blue jersey, it's that Congress passes laws, and those laws are interpreted as they are written, not making stuff up as you go along. And I think that's what we need to get to is return to that. That's the only way you're going to have credibility. But the Democrats, you know, when Chuck Schumer is saying, you're going to reap a whirlwind and you have these hearings about, you know, trying to, on the Supreme Court, you know, especially they target Clarence Thomas. They really despise him for a variety of reasons. But he is, you know, now I think like the six longest serving Supreme Court justice of all time, but they want to undermine the courts because ultimately they want to pack the court. And that's if they ever really, I mean,

if you play this out, Tucker, if they ever had what we have right now, which is a Republican or a Democrat House, Democrat Senate Democrat president, they would pack the Supreme Court. They would make D.C. estate, maybe Puerto Rico. They would federalize our elections. They would have amnesty. I mean, they are in this now for a total power grab. And I just want to make sure there's judges that, again, view the laws that's written out how they want it to be. That's all you can ask for. You see what has happened in Brazil. Bolsonaro lost a couple of years ago to a socialist Lula, a convicted felon.

And everyone imagined that Lula would, you know, move the country hard left, which I think you'd like to do. But it's really been a Supreme Court justice who has made all the major decisions in Brazil ever since. I mean, basically, that country is run by a single Supreme Court justice in a way that's a, you know, it's a dictatorship. Yeah. How does that not happen here? Well, I think it's, we were perilously close to that happening here through lawfare, right? You just think of what, and we can get into it on the sort of the Russia hoax stuff, but what that did, it gave all the folks on the left a sort of a reason or a cause to undermine not just the president. of the United States, but to spy on a on a candidate like they did. I think justice should be

coming for the people that are involved. Brendan, Clapper, Comey, there should be indictments that come because what they did to this country, not just for those four years, but it extended when Trump was, of course, out of office and they tried to put him in jail for the rest of his life, bankrupt his entire family. The Hunter Biden laptop part of the FBI was very well aware. I mean, we took the deposition in Missouri v. Biden of Elvis Chan, who admitted that they had months and months of monthly meetings pre-bunking that story, telling them there was a Russian hack and leak operation. Yol Roth, who was the integrity person at Twitter, said they specifically mentioned the Hunter Biden laptop. The FBI had the laptop in November of 2019. They had it all along, but they were

claiming it was a Russian hack and leak operation. So how do you get there? Well, you have a system that's captured by people who were obsessed with taking President Trump down. And then they never wanted him to get back in office. And they can't believe it. I think what you're seeing right now, this sort of weird phase the Democrats are in, they can't believe he actually pulled it off. They can't believe that he's back. They literally thought he had him buried, right?

Yeah, we aren't at this weird phase where the Democrat, the Democratic Party really doesn't seem like a factor in the national conversation in American politics. All the real fights are between, you know, our intra-Republican fight. Republicans versus Republican, but that's got to be just a period, right, that we're in. Yeah. That's why I think it would seem, to your point, it almost, I think the tendency would believe that all of this, and now that we're on the other side of the fever dream, that this was all inevitable, right? That what we're seeing, all the things that are taking place, the dismantling of some of these things, you know, going after USAID, having a justice

department that's not going after Catholics because they're traditional Catholics or parents because they show up to school board meetings. I think it's an important reminder, which is a big part of the book too, is just how close we were to losing it all. To me, people say power corrupts. I think power reveals more than anything else. You see the true nature of people when they have power, how they handle it. And I think particularly during COVID, people who never should have had that kind of power had it and they wielded in ways that people could have never imagined in this country. And then you look at the lawfare. You look at what they were willing to do to dissent, to silence dissent. This is all happening, not some other place, but here. And we have to be

vigilant in standing up against that. Because, you know, these things, we like to think that majorities are forever. They're not. Right. Nothing is forever. And so in many ways, it's sort of a playbook of how you push back, what strategies you employ to go do that. And you have, have to be aggressive and you have to, I think that my biggest takeaway from my time as attorney general is you have to be in that arena, take the criticism and, you know, fight for the things that you believe in. And I think that is, you know, that I ask judges, now I'm on the judiciary committee. When judges come forward, I ask less about, I mean, I want to know what their judicial philosophy is. That's very important. But to me, I think the next phase, the next line of questioning that's

most important moving forward is, do you have the courage when people are outside your home, when you're being threatened when people at the cocktail parties in Washington may not want you to do something will you rule the appropriate way that's what we need more of why would that be a concern well I think we've seen

that happen go the other way right we have and I don't think it's from a lack of decency on like Amy Coney Barrett is an indecent person or like some closet lefty or sandwich John Roberts they're just afraid like everybody and they want you know they don't want to be snarled at when they go to the chevy chase club for cocktails or

whatever i mean they're just people and so how do you identify the brave ones clarence thomas is brave well he is brave yeah i think um obviously some maybe some positions that they took i mean i'll just you know um some of the judges that in some of these cases um that are that are cited in the book um you know uh basically in the missouri versus biden case was when we got favorable rulings, not only the district court, the appellate court, I mean, really went on a limb and said, this is the most egregious violation of the First Amendment we've seen in American history. When you look at the sprawling expanse of the agencies that were captured by this.

Okay, so would you mind telling that story just from beginning to end? Because I think even people are interested in the topic may not fully appreciate what happened. So the Biden administration comes in, and on the third day, the third day in office, start to begin to hammer this home. Now, there had been semblances of this that predate the Biden administration in that the FBI, for example, when we took the deposition of Elvis Chan, he was the FBI guy in Northern California that's working with the big tech companies. Okay. Even in the Trump administration, they were, the FBI was working with Democrat staffers to connect with big tech companies to look for things to censor under the guise of Russian disinformation, right? This was, this was the thing. Again, it's kind of a

legacy of what that hoax really meant for the country, that foundation was laid down for a lot of folks in the administrative state or the deep state, whatever you want to call it, as a way to undermine an agenda under the guise of this is misinformation or disinformation. So when Biden comes into office, all these agencies that are galvanized, you're mentioned, actually very ironically. Tucker Carlson was mentioned. Alex Berenson was mentioned, RFK Jr. were mentioned in these emails about people promoting vaccine. or these sort of things that they wanted to stamp out. So you couldn't have a debate, right? You couldn't have a debate about things. They just wanted those voices silenced, de-platformed.

And so how do you do that? Since it is so obviously unconstitutional, every child knows that. Well, that's correct. The government can't do it. And they shouldn't be able to outsource it either, which is what was happening. So they're outsourcing their censorship to some of the biggest companies in the history of the world. And so we had some sense of this. So here's a company we're always excited to advertise because we actually use their products every day it's Maryweather Farms. Remember when everybody knew their neighborhood butcher? You look back and you feel like, oh, there was something really important about that, knowing the person who cut your meat. And at some point, your grandparents knew the people who raised their meat so they could trust what they ate. But

that time is long gone. It's been replaced by an era of grocery store mystery meat, boxed by distant Beef Corporations. None of which raised a single cow. Unlike your childhood, they don't know you, they're not interested in you. The whole thing is creepy. The only thing that matters to them is money and God knows what you're eating. Maryweather Farms is the answer to that. They raise their cattle in the U.S. in Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado, and they prepare their meat themselves in their facilities in this country. No middlemen, no outsourcing, no foreign beef sneaking through a back door. Nobody wants foreign meat. Sorry, we have a great meat, the best meat, here in the United States. And we buy ours at Maryweather Farms. Their cuts are pasture-raised, hormone-free, antibiotic-free, and absolutely delicious.

I gorged on one last night. You got to try this. For real. Every day we eat it. Go to Maryweather Farms.com slash Tucker. Use the code Tucker 76 for 15% off your first order. That's Maryweather Farms.com slash Tucker. But can I ask, I mean, there are lawyers involved in every decision. that the executive branch makes. So White House counsel signs off on that. Sure. Yeah.

Yeah. And by the way, in a weird quirk of history, James Baker, who was the general counsel for the FBI. Yes. Goes, and after he does his stint at Brookings, goes, and it's the general counsel for Twitter. So one hand washes the other. They were more than willing to work with the Biden administration.

to censor points of view on that platform. So you have people who were in this kind of ecosystem all along that didn't take much convincing. But the Biden administration knew that they needed to silence this sort of level of dissent. It was, you know, it was 100 Biden laptop. It was certainly during COVID, any kind of questioning of election results or whatever. I mean, all this stuff was on the table. And what they did was as they worked, as we took the depth as, you know, this sort of plays out. But Jen Saki's at the podium, if you recall, saying we're flagging things that we find offensive for Facebook.

Joe Biden is threatening to take away Section 230 protections. What's Section 230 protections? Those are basically, in the 1990s when the Internet becomes a thing in the Telecommunications Act, they say that these are platforms that can't be sued unlike publishers who can be sued. Publishers are supposed to be more arbiters of what you can say. It's why CNN gets sued by President Trump for false things. But like Twitter, Facebook, those are considered platforms. They're immune from lawsuits. So Joe Biden starts threatening Section 230 protections.

They start threatening investigations. So if someone libeles you on social media, you can sue the person, but you cannot see the company that hosted it. Whereas if someone liables you in a newspaper or television channel, you can sue the newspaper or television channel. That's right. And so Section 230 protection is a multi-billion dollar sort of subsidy in. some ways. Now, I happen to think, look, if that's, if you're actually having this platform where people can express their point of view, that's a great thing. Amen. But that's not what was happening, right? Through immense pressure from the government, they were censoring all sorts of

things. How do they do that? How does the president or his staff exert pressure on, say, Facebook or Google or Twitter? So they had direct lines of communication. They had a secret portal where executives from these social media companies could communicate directly with high-ranking White House officials. who was the deputy communications guy in the Biden White House was in constant communication, berating these people, telling them that's not good enough. You need to do more.

Let me assure you this is coming from the highest levels of the administration. Those sorts of things were constantly streaming at the social media companies. And then you also had, as we took the deposition in that case, of people from the CDC, they literally the CDC were just giving them lines that they should censor. So the government is saying censor these exact phrases, right? That is exactly what's giving this off to the social media companies. If this is uttered, we want you to silence these people.

You want to do platform these people. You want me to downgrade, throttle these sort of posts. We had the deposition. Is that illegal? No, it's not legal. So if it's illegal, then that by definition means it's a crime and aren't crime supposed to be punished? Yes, they should be. Absolutely. But we, you know, we sued the government to show censorship. A lot of social media companies had been sued before in other cases. But those ended up in the Northern District of California, never to be seen again. What was unique about our case, the Missouri versus Biden case, we sued, you know, White House officials. We named them, you know, personally. We named all these agencies. And we got to take their depositions. SISA, which is an agency, I know you're familiar with, but maybe in your

audience probably of all audiences would know is the cybersecurity infrastructure administration security administration their job reportedly was to make sure that you know cyber you know our our infrastructures you know resilient against cyber attacks they were very much involved in something called the election integrity project where they outsourced their censorship to Stanford and the University of Washington to flag certain posts that would then be given to social media companies to censor. The CDC was involved with it. Sisa was involved with it.

The FBI, of course, played a role with the pre-bunking of the Hunter Biden laptop, which they knew was actually real. They knew it was real. They had it in their possession. And then they pre-bunked it. And then when it came out, they never actually said, when people were asking, is this legitimate? They never actually said, no, we have it.

So they were very much a part of this operation to silence millions of American voices. And I think for me, the First Amendment... How many people have been fired at the FBI for that? I don't know the answer to that. Right around zero. Yeah. And this is the kind of accountability. Like, what the hell is that? Yeah. And that's something that as we talk to, you know,

Cash Patel and his confirmation hearings, it's certainly something that we talked about. He's very well aware. I think having somebody like that who was on the other side of it is a good thing, but we certainly need to have more accountability. But these people, it's just the scale of it was... immense. And it really wasn't exposed until we filed the lawsuit again. And then when Elon Musk buys Twitter, now X, they did the Twitter files. And you saw even more of it, right? Like how these people were in charge of this stuff is insane. What's interesting from just like a corporate governance point of view, like let's say I'm Mark Zuckerberg seems pretty liberal, but not maybe a

liberal activist. But you spend four years getting attacked for censorship when, and you you never say, actually, what he did ultimately say, but he didn't say for years, I'm only doing this because the Biden people are pushing me to do it. Like, these companies were hurt by this, weren't they? Yeah, I think the Zuckerberg and the Facebook example is really interesting because if you go back in time, if you get in the Delorean here, a lot of people blamed Facebook for President Trump's election. Remember this? Yes. And I think then, and the next election cycle, whether that was sort of internalized or not, Zuckerbuck's materializes. So Zuckerberg is funding a lot of the voter turnout, privately funding election operations, which is kind of crazy in 2020.

And then gets sort of, you know, whether completely voluntary or steamrolled by threat of investigation is part of then Facebook very much a part of this censorship regime that existed. And now Zuckerberg seems to be like red-pilled, I guess. I don't know. I don't know how much of this is sincere from these big tech companies, or it's just because President Trump won, time will tell. But it does feel like my hope is that censorship is in retreat a little bit now and that this renaissance you're seeing that you talk about a lot in your show, the First Amendment and free speech and how important that is the fabric of this country.

It really is the beating heart of our Constitution, the ability to say things that you find, that you might find incredibly offensive or even dangerous, your ability to defend someone else's right to do that is really at the core of this American experiment. And we have to fight for that every, you know, tooth and nail. And so that lawsuit, I mean, just think of the time, I was blessed to have a good team. John Sauer was my Solicitor General in Missouri. He's now the Solicitor General of the United States for the first four district judges that have been nominated in Missouri. all worked in my office.

There's another guy who worked in my office who's now... The first four all worked in your office? Mm-hmm. Yeah. So I think, again, why that time period was instructive, I think there's a forging that happens in that time of crisis. And when you come together and you fight the good fight and you come out on the other side, there's a lot of important work to do.

Interestingly, also I think RFK Jr. is a part of that. I mean, he was one of the guys originally censored. Now he's on the inside. And then another guy who was actually a plaintiff in Missouri v. Biden, Dr. J. Badacharya, who's now the head of NIH. He's on the inside now. So again, I think the Democrats are just, they can't believe this is actually what happened. But the rebels are now kind of are doing some good things, I think, on the inside.

Dr. Bottacharya was one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration. Which essentially said something so controversial, like there is a thing like natural immunity that can exist for COVID. They tried to wreck their careers. Anthony Fauci himself tried to wreck their careers. He was a well-accomplished Stanford professor, and now he's running NIH. I think there's a lot of great symmetry to all that. It's just, I mean, I believe in forgiveness and mercy. I think they're essential to our humanity, and we should pursue them. but also justice is important, too.

Yeah. And why not treat all of these guys like Biden treated the J6 defendants? I don't understand. Like, how was Fauci wandering around Washington still? Yeah. Working at Georgetown and taking the biggest federal pension. And I don't understand that. Yeah, the Fauci candles, the light has dimmed.

The light has dimmed, but he's still around. And I will tell you that that day, it's one of the last things I did as Attorney General, because I was just elected the Senate and we had this deposition. of Anthony Fauci scheduled at the NIH headquarters and took the deposition of Anthony Fauci. The security in there was, I mean, only in the White House as I've seen security like that. So Fauci walks in, you know, shake hands.

Jeff Landry, who was the Attorney General from Louisiana, now Governor, had a copy of RFK Juniors, the real Anthony Fauci out on the table, which I'm sure he did not appreciate. And probably hadn't read. Probably had not read. You've probably heard about eight sleep. Lots of people are talking about it.

It is a company with one mission, improving your sleep, and it's changing the way people do that, the way they get a good night's rest. We just got word that their team is launching a new product. It's called the Pod 5. It's an original and innovative mattress cover, plus a blanket that uses precision temperature control to regulate your body's sleep cycles

and give you the perfect sleep, which really, really matters. It can range all the way from 55 degrees to 110 degrees, degrees, meaning that you're covered no matter what. It's like electric blanket to the next level, but also a cooling blanket. So it makes you sleep better. Temperature has a massive effect on the way you sleep. By the way, it also detects snoring. And then it adjusts your bed position to reduce or completely stop it. So there are a lot of ladies in America who are going to be grateful for this product. Everybody who works here will tell you, because they all use it that there's no better way to be alert, productive, and happy than by sleeping well

and 8Sleep really does help. Visit 8Sleep.com slash Tucker. Use the code Tucker to get $350 off your Pod 5 Ultra. If you don't like it, you return it within a month. That won't happen. We think you'll love it. But you can if you want, 8Sleep.com slash Tucker. That deposition took all day long. And you get, in that kind of setting, you get a real sense of a person. And he said, I don't remember a recall like 174 times, which says a lot for a guy who proclaimed to be the science and knew everything, suddenly he couldn't remember

much at all. But when he was confronted with some of the actions early on in COVID, again, I think people, you know, there's a the Czech writer, Milan-Coder writes that the struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory versus forgetting, right? And so I think it's important remember these things. very early on

when it was pretty obvious that this came from a Chinese lab called the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Right. Like what was the John Stewart thing when he confronted Colbert?

I mean, it's one of the maybe a few smart things he's ever said. It's like maybe it wasn't a bat who made it with a penguin. Maybe it was this virology lab with the name on it in Wuhan. But anyway,

it was very obvious early on because of the sort of secretive funding. And basically, let's take a step back. In 2014, the United States basically said, we're not going to participate in gain to function research anymore. It's very dangerous. Basically, hyper-charging viruses that can sweep through the world just to find,

you know, a vaccine that might stop it. It seems like a bad idea. It sure does. Okay? So we don't do that anymore in this country, but through the EcoHealth Alliance, it's funded and it's being done in Wuhan, which did not have, by the way, the safety protocols necessary to do this kind of work. Apparently not.

Apparently not. So unleashed on the world. China lies about it. The World Health Organization, which is bought and paid for by the communists in China, they lie about it. And then all of a sudden you have this global pandemic. Fauci knows immediately the problem here. And it could come back to him. And so in the deposition, he sent, we find out, he sends his chief deputy over to China to see what they're doing, with the Chinese government.

And there he's a big fan of these lockdowns. Big fan, comes back and reports back to Fauci. All these lockdowns are really working. And so Fauci then has this idea that that's what he's going to create in the United States. It's also interesting when he asked about the efficacy of masks. You know, he was such a proponent that everybody should wear a mask all day long, even when you're outside. A friend of his emails him and says, this is like in April of 2020, hey, I'm getting on a flight. This COVID thing is a thing.

Do I need to wear a mask? He's like, of course not. Masters are totally ineffective. You don't need to wear a mask. so like masks off right um but it's very telling and so he and he meant to undermine anybody who disagreed with him um participated in studies he pretended or he authorized studies he pretended to have nothing to do with that this was from a wet market and not from a lab that he knew was a lie and you just think of the damage that was done there's uh actually the first time that

i ever met rfk junior i was at a conference in Utah and this is in probably the summer of 2021 and He was familiar with some of the work that I've been doing to push back on COVID tyranny and these excessive regulations. So we had a conversation, he was talking to a few of us, and he reminded me of something that this has been years since I've been thought about something called the Milgram experiment, which was done at Yale in the 1950s or the 1960s, where essentially people were brought into this room and there's a guy in a lab coat and a clipboard and tells them that there's somebody on the other side of the wall. when they get an answer wrong, we need you to flip the switch to, you know, give a little pain. And the number of people that would do that, even when there were cries in the other room and maybe even someone dying on the other side, the willingness of some people to continue to do that because of this authority figure in the white coat. Exactly. It haunted me. When he told me that story, I thought about it haunted me throughout all of this and kind of strength of my resolve to really push back because in those moments, you need people who are willing to stand up and fight back, right? But, yeah, Fauci was sort of, he was heralded as literally some sort of like saint-like figure. He had candles.

And I think some of it was they wanted to make Trump. People were really obsessed with making Trump look bad. The Democrats want to capitalize on this crisis, make him pay. Because you also forget Trump was cruising going into that COVID. I mean, he was on his way to winning, I think, decisively in the fall of that year. And they used COVID for everything it was. Fauci was sort of this who undermined President Trump. use this as alternative figure.

This whole weird trust the science thing happened. Then, of course, you have the summer of 2020, the summer of love. And you see all these sort of Marxist organizations rally to create ultimate disruption. And then you have the election. You have Mark Elias out there trying to undermine, you know, all these election integrity measures that have been put in place, even in blue states forever. I mean, just think of the level. All this stuff happening at one time.

It was a crazy time. Like that whole period of time was a crazy time. It's unbelievable. And so that's what you sort of document some of these things that in Missouri, for example, we beat back all three of Mark Elias's lawsuits to weaken our election integrity laws. But he was successful other places. And so you just had the whole of kind of the left coming for all the things that we care about, borders, free speech, freedom of movement, you know, all these sorts of things that you kind of take for granted.

We're up for grabs. When you talk to Fauci, when you deposed him for eight hours, you said? Yeah. Did you get the feeling he was lying? Is he a good liar? He's pretty, yeah, and he's a good witness. I'll give him that. He was a good, I mean, this isn't his first rodeo.

He's been in front of Congress. Oh, I know, yeah. He's very smooth. But there's just too many inconsistencies. Did he seem, I mean, short of like a sociopath, most people, when confronted with inconsistencies in their story, get uncomfortable. And a deposition is a place where you definitely confront people. Yeah, the only time he got really uncomfortable, I would say, is when we continue to question him, his authority.

he didn't like that. You said this. Now, wait a minute. Did you change your mind on this, doctor? You know, you get to that kind of line of questioning. He didn't like people. He's not used to that. He wasn't used at all.

And by the way, I also think another telling moment of that deposition was after the lunch break, we came back and the court reporter sneezed. And he looked at her and asked her to put a mask on. Asked her if she had an upper respiratory virus. She had COVID. Will you put a mask on? She put a mask on. I mean, this is, by the way, November of 2022.

this isn't like March of 2020 and this is the guy that was in charge of our nation's health like so um but i think it COVID became a time where these weird like masks became like a it was the ultimate virtue signal almost like having the stupid sign in this house we believe out in your front lawn thing right it became like a a way of distinguishing people who were who were a problem the othering that happened in our society is really dangerous. And I think, you know, families and friendships were destroyed over all this. That's the kind of power this little guy wielded. And he's not been held to account yet. What do you think the real story was? Like, where did COVID come from? We assume it came from the lab. Do we think it was intentional or unintentional in its release? When do we think the

Chinese knew it was circulating among the population? And to what extent was it a joint creation of U.S. and China. Well, it's in the book, actually. The last line of defense. I feel a little awkward doing that. I've never actually, but it's actually. So the first chapters really kind of go back in time, because I think to give context for all the other crazy things we had to push back against, it was really important to go back to that moment of when this thing first happened and remember that there was like police tape around kids playgrounds. They were bulldozing skate parks on beaches. The level of insanity that took hold, it really is wild. And hopefully we never experienced that again, but I think it's important to document those excesses and what people

were willing to do to hold on and aggregate and exercise power. I mean, people who literally would county executives and mayors were telling people that you could live your life today or not. Like, it's insane what was going on. But really my first, and actually on your show announced the lawsuit, we sued China. We sued China in April of 2020 for unleashing this pandemic on the world. And I think, and ultimately, there's a judgment out there for $24 billion that Missouri has that can go, by the way, seize farmland now. So my successor, Andrew Bailey, is going to have that opportunity. And I think he'll do it. But anyway, I think through our research, through public and then, of course, we wanted to get to discovery,

which is why we filed the lawsuit, was that in November and December of 2019, patient zero enters the hospital. This is how I see it. And patient zero likely came from that lab. So that, and of course, you know, you get to, you know, different strains down the line. It's less lethal as any virus is. But initially, that's where it happened. It happened in Wuhan. And it came from the lab.

China, a very closed society with communist dictators who have concentration camps, wanted to deny its existence for a while. But within, you know, by December, Dr. Lee, I think is his name, Dr. Lee was on Wii chat and said, this is what's happening. Like, this is a virus that came out of a lab and people are dying. He had to recant that, of course, and then mysteriously died a couple months later. But it was kind of this whistleblower. And the Chinese people actually celebrated this guy for blowing the whistle. So anyway, so China discovers that this is a thing. It's a very lethal and widespreading virus. Do you believe the release was accidental? I don't believe it was on purpose. I mean, it could be, but I don't think so. I think it got out

accidentally. But the cover-up then is almost worse than the crime, of course, right? Because then, and one of the problems with China is they want to be considered one of these countries on the world stage, but then doesn't do the things that like a country would do to kind of notify everybody. So what they do then is they close all the flights, internal flights in China, in and out of Wuhan. But they don't stop the international flights, interestingly. So you can still fly internationally in and out of Wuhan, but you can't fly within China out of Wuhan. They immediately become not, they were the largest net exporter of PPE, personal protective equipment. They immediately become the biggest net importer of PPE.

So they know something's going down. And this is in like January-ish. and then finally they kind of have to with the World Health Organization sort of holding their hand let the world know that this is out there and then the story of courses

well this wasn't something we created this came from a bat mating with a penguin or whatever the example was or some wet market theory and then what's really interesting is President Trump takes the action you would want him to take

he closes flights coming in and out of China right I remember that that outbreak of race racism. Yeah. Like all of a sudden, that was a xenophobic act. You know what I mean? Like, and then Nancy Pelosi is on the streets of San Francisco in, in Chinatown, saying, everything's fine here. Come here. This is fine. Like, it was this, this Trump derangement syndrome where even if it was the right thing to do, people would take the opposite point of view, right? So he shuts down the flights and because he understands that there's a problem.

But by this point, you said Fauci knows that the virus came from that lab. Yeah. To what extent was Fauci implicated in the creation of the virus? Do we know? Well, by all accounts, he wanted the gain of function research to continue. And it was funded through an NGO, imagine that, the Eco Health Alliance. Yes. So the money still flowed, but no one would ever be.

be able to really track it, right? Can we say definitively that U.S. tax dollars help create COVID? I believe that. I mean, whatever you think of COVID, a lot of people did die of it. Yeah. Millions of people died of it, I think. Yeah, one of the great sense, Tucker, is that there was never any distinguishing between a super vulnerable elderly person with comorbidities. There's a different way of dealing with that scenario than a five-year-old healthy kid. Of course. No, of course. And it's also, it would be good during a pandemic to have treatment for your population. Right. Not discouraged treatment. Of course, all true. I guess I just want to linger on the fact you just endorsed it that U.S. tax dollars were used to help create this virus that killed millions of people. And I feel like the fact that no one's been held accountable there is a, I mean, I don't know why. That's a good question. I think that there ought to be. I think that there ought to be hearings. I think Fauci should be at least, at least brought before Congress at this point, right? At least. Why has any been? I don't know. Yeah, I don't, not on the committee. I certainly would love to see that happen. And I think that there ought to be accountability. And this shouldn't go away. Do you think that too many people are implicated in it? Maybe. It feels to me like this was very much a sort of an inside operation because the government, well, in fairness, the United States government said we don't want to do gain of function research anymore.

But we did through the funding that flowed through the eco-health alliance, right? So that's how everything works. They can't do censorship so they outsource it. Correct. They can't assassinate people so they outsource it. I mean, everything is. Well, and think about what we just went through, and I don't want to, we go back to this, but look at this USAID stuff. Yeah.

Right? Like, I just led the rescissions package to claw back $8 billion plus of that, which is like the ridiculous stuff like transgender sex surgeries in Guatemala and DEI trainings in Burma and Sesame Street in Iraq, all this ridiculous stuff that the American people are rightly pissed off about. There's no line item in the budget for that. Like, there's no line item. for that. It's just the money goes to this Institute for Peace or all these BS names that exist out there and they do a bunch of crazy stuff and then you have to kind of

go on the back end and pull it back and there's my hope is that when you have an administration like the one we have now and I do think they're kind of getting a handle on this. They paused a lot of the funding they've eliminated USAID altogether. They're bringing it into the State Department. That's a good, that's progress. That's a good thing

to do. But you've got to stay vigilant on this because there's a lot of people in the administrative state that think they know better. They're the expert. and they don't care what a senator or congressman or even what the people believe or think they know better. And that's the kind of thing that has to be ultimately like disrupted and dismantled

completely. And that's one of the reasons why I think my experience is AG now in the Senate. That's my focus. Like I don't, you know, that's what I want to do. I want to get rid of all that stuff that people hate back home. So, but anyway, yeah, I think that

so he sends his deputy over there. He's a big fan of lockdowns. comes back and begins to undermine President Trump. You know, when President Trump talks about this having come from a lab, you know, he's already a xenophobe because he's restricted travel. Now he says it's from a lab. That's ridiculous. Everybody piles on about that, and by the way, it's true.

So I think that this combination of Trump derangement syndrome and this obsession with power and the left, I mean, they couldn't have believed their luck to have a pandemic. that they could move all the things that they wanted to move on. Sure. And, I mean, it certainly reduced the United States relative to China on many levels, but economically, most obviously. It really gravely damaged the U.S. economy, and, you know, we're still dealing with it. But I guess I just can't get past this question of how did the virus come to be and who paid for it.

And the downstream effects are history changing and terrible for the United States. and terrible for the families, those who were killed, et cetera, et cetera. But, like, somebody did that. Yeah. And I don't understand how Republicans can control all three branches, and we don't have an answer. Yeah. I think ultimately, the Department of Justice should take a look at this stuff,

as they should on the Russia hoax. I think there's a lot of, there's a lot. It's a target-rich environment, let's just put it that way. I think of the places that they could go. Yeah. Yeah, sorry. just it's just uh it feels like since it's been five years that we're going to get to a point where it's like never going to no i know um right which is by the way one of the reasons we filed that lawsuit

was it felt like if you could get into discovery phase which again is you're suing a foreign country we were able to slide into one of the exceptions you know there's the foreign sovereign immunities act which generally means you can't sue foreign countries but we i think one of the clever things we did here is we said no this falls into the commercial activity exception to that meaning if you're going to be controlling hospital systems over there and you're going to be controlling PPE, the flow of it, you fall into one of these exceptions and the judge agreed. But I think the other thing for me that became clear is the epicenter of the global supply chain network runs through China, right?

That became very obvious. Yeah. Right? And so, like for me, my son has epilepsy, right? He relies on multiple seizure medications every day to stay a lot. And it occurred to me, well, you know, 90% of our pharmaceuticals, 80% of our pharmaceuticals come from somewhere else, mostly China, the raw materials for it. Including the seizure meds? Uh-huh.

Yeah. Oh, wow. So think about it. What if China just decides to stop producing that stuff or poison that stuff? One of the reasons why I'm a big proponent and believe I think it's good for our economy, it's because we got onshore a lot of the stuff that was. 30 years ago, sent to be done somewhere else. To take that specific example, so the seizure medications for epilepsy,

including the ones your son takes, they're not made in the United States? No, they're sourced. I mean, all the source materials for the most part of, not just anti-epileptic seizure meds, but most things that people take on a daily basis are derived from China. Yeah, but not just vitamin C or even,

you know, but drugs that we would literally die if you don't have them, those would seem like priorities. How hard would it be to have those drugs specifically made in the U.S. Well, I think President Trump has identified this as a priority. Certainly something we've talked about. I think for whatever reason, that stuff went somewhere else, like so many other things.

But that has to be brought back home. At a minimum, like countries that aren't communist regimes that want to, you know, throw people in concentration camps and have global dominance, right? So, but we should do that stuff here. It's a national security issue. Like, by the way, the critical minerals that we rely on to make fighter jets and iPhones, like this stuff, we got to bring that stuff back home. And I think you're seeing that play out in some of the trade deals and the investment

that's happening now. But yeah, but that occurred to me. And I also think one of the wake-up calls here, which everybody kind of had a breaking point with all this, mine was probably the realization of how reliant we were on China for things and one of the reasons why we moved forward on the lawsuit. But also, if you recall Tucker, this letter that over a thousand public health officials signed during the George Floyd protests, remember this? They're saying, everybody had to stay home. Remember this was you couldn't, people were protesting anything else.

They had to stay home. But if you were going to attend a Black Lives Matter protest, the rules didn't apply to you anymore. I think for members of the Democratic Party's militia, the youth wing. Yeah. Like that was like, I think for a lot of people that I've talked to who weren't like in the thick of it, actually have lives and families that are outside of this stuff. When they saw that, that you got a license to go out and protest, quote unquote, systemic racism, you could go do that, but you couldn't protest something else. At that point, it was very obvious what this

whole thing was about. And you saw, I think, the entire apparatus of the Democrat Party, these NGOs, bricks are being delivered mysteriously by, you know, organizations when the sunset. that, I mean, all this stuff was meant to sort of create the kind of untethering that's necessary for something much bigger. And they were all in on that. I just worry that people are losing all confidence in the system. And when people I know who are moderate and sensible and well-educated, smart, you know, will believe anything at this point, just absolutely anything. And the reason they'll believe anything is because so many things they believed in turned out not to be true.

and there was zero accountability and has been zero accountability for really anything other than January 6 that I'm aware of and I just wonder if the people in making the laws and crafting the regulation in Washington understand that the whole system at some point

becomes at risk because the population's like I don't believe anything. Right. Well, I agree with you and one of the reasons why when President Trump was creating his cabinet and going through the confirmation process, he has put together a team. And by the way,

this is going to happen overnight. I don't, I think, I think this confidence that you're talking about, this lack of lost confidence, lack of confidence in institutions is a real thing. And by the way, in many ways, rightfully so, right? When you have law enforcement agencies that are weaponized, not just against their chief political rival, but against the American people, we ought to, there should be a loss of confidence. But what comes next is, how do you regain the confidence? It has to be accountability, right? And so that's what needs to happen. Not vengeance or revenge.

I don't think that's a good thing at all. And by the way, not to do the same thing that they did to target a political opponent because of a political opponent, but rather to say, you did something that was terrible for our country, which basically relies on self-governance and accountability. I mean, at the end of the day, right, that's the ultimate thing. People in Missouri can send me there, they can send me home, they can send me back. There's some level of accountability that comes with our, with the way our constitutional republic but when you get to all this other stuff that's below that

which is why the administrative state is so dangerous because they're not accountable to anybody they know it um and you have to rein that in and disrupt it and dismantle it in in many ways and again i think part of what drove me to uncover a lot of the things as ag was that and now in this new role it's to help finish that job but you really do need an administration that believes that too And I don't think we've had, I can't think of any administration in the last hundred years that has invested in rooting that out as this one. I agree. I just, you know, there's a lot of emphasis on, you know, people who are criticizing BB on college campuses and everything, which is fine. But I'm getting to the point, and I know a lot of the people, you know, I run DOJ and I really like them and think they're decent people.

and I agree with them on most things. However, like the BLM riots, COVID, censorship, like you got to get to the bottom of this stuff. Epstein, sorry to say it. I know no one wants to hear it, but it's just not because I care that much about Epstein. It's like the perception, however, that some people are above the law

is the most corrosive possible perception in any society. Yeah, no, I agree. And I think you just take this Russia-Gate stuff, Here's another great example. I think, you know, it's so corrosive, is the right word, of how it infected so many aspects of law enforcement, what they're, I mean, think about it all the time that the FBI is spending trying to protect Hunter Biden and, you know, get Trump out of office or going after parents or Catholics. Like the FBI is supposed to like go after the bad guys, right? Like help clean up the streets in Washington, D.C. or in St. Louis or. or in New York or wherever.

Like, think of all the resources pulled away to go do all this other bullshit that they Biden administration wanted to do. It really is a tragedy. And so I do think that there's some opportunities coming up for the Justice Department to go do that. And the Russia gate thing is front and center. Just think of the idea that Hillary Clinton, who, by the way, was working with the George Soros organization to come up with this ridiculous theory to go.

deflect from her emails, right? Her email scandal, they needed something on Trump. And they concocted this thing out of thin air that he was some Russian asset or had some, was in bed with Putin on stuff. And then they sold that to the intelligence agencies that bought it and then convinced the president of the United States, Barack Obama, to spy on the guy who was running for president who happened to be a Republican. And then they continued to lie about it.

And still, by the way, continue to lie about it to this day about their role in undermining not just the like our system of like that two people are running against each other the American people get to decide they did everything for a five year period to undermine his not just his agenda but his presidency and then the same group of people then are weaponized and they go get Jack Smith who's like everybody knows and prosecutor world is just like a hired gun like you go you put you make him special counsel when it's like show me the man I'll show you the crime yeah Soviet-style justice. That's exactly what that was.

And it was happening in this country. And they're down in Mar-a-Lago, going through the first lady's, you know, underwear drawer, trying to find probably stuff related to Crossfire Hurricane, probably and maybe some other stuff. But it was just about settling political scores.

With guns. With guns. And then you have, you know, Fani Willis's deputy meeting with the White House counsel. Why is a state, why is a state prosecutor in Georgia? meeting with the White House counsel's office. Why would they be doing that?

Why would the number three person from DOJ go to the New York district attorney's office to help out with the prosecution of President Trump? Why is all this happening? The minute, President Trump's original sin to them was that he ran at all, that he came down the escalator. Yes. And he was such a disruptive force that they were willing to save democracy. They were willing to destroy democracy.

And so now, and the reason why I'm, I feel committed. with the job I had, getting back to what job would you rather have? I think it's important to have people in the United States Senate and Congress who want to see this project through, that they want accountability restored, they want people to actually not believe their government is weaponized against them. Like, it's a tall task given the sins of the last eight years, but it's important for this republic to last and to stand and for our kids and grandkids, right? I couldn't agree more. I mean, you know, you've got more relevant law enforcement experience a lot of people running DOJ, sorry to say that, but it's true, I hope that you're in contact,

I won't even ask you, put you an uncomfortable position, but I hope that you're in contact with them. And I hope that you will convey the following message to the extent that you don't bring to light the truth and affect justice, people start to think, well, maybe you're in league with the bad guys too. I mean, I don't, you know, which I think is unfair and I like the attorney general and I like the FBI director and Labungino and all that. But like, I think it's fair to ask at a certain point, like, why aren't you prosecuting anybody for any of this stuff? And what's the answer? Well, we're really busy. Really? Are you really that busy? You know what I mean? And maybe you're in it on it too. And I don't think they are in on it.

I don't think they're bad people. I'm not alleging that. But a lot of people will start to think that very soon unless they act. And I hope you will pass on that message. I will. And I think what people are looking for is action. There's no doubt. Yeah. Yeah. Is it hard to, I mean, you would know since you've been involved in it all. But just as a process matter, is it hard to say, you know, we know that Clapper and Brennan were involved in illegal activities. Let's get an indictment. Like, how hard is that?

Well, yeah. I mean, I think the issue is that it's possible some of the statute of limitations may have run on a lot of the crimes. However, not necessarily on a conspiracy, on an ongoing conspiracy. And there's also no presidential candidate immunity. Hillary Clinton doesn't have immunity. Now, Barack Obama likely does, ironically because of the U.S. v. Trump case where John Sauer, who's now the Solicitor General, who's my Solicitor General, argued successfully before the Supreme Court that official acts, you know, you can't have ongoing.

No. You know, so there is such a thing as presidential immunity that was established. So Barack Obama may have presidential immunity while he was in office. I don't know if he, you know, engaged in activities after he was out of office. Who knows? Certainly James Comey doesn't have. immunity. Clapper doesn't have immunity. Brennan doesn't have immunity. So I think, you know, this is going to go where the facts lead, and I think that the most likely, if there was something

to pursue, it's likely an ongoing conspiracy to defraud the American people. And that is a crime. So we'll see. But there can and probably should be, no, let me say, definitely should be indictments. Dan Bongino, who's taking a lot of crap for the Epstein thing, but I can verify, since I know him well, is a good man, decent man. But he said in public and also in private that the FBI is way more corrupt than he had any sense of it. He didn't know. He said that. And how hard is it? Why is it so hard to clean up the FBI? Well, I guess you could say You kind of need to know What is the no-nones, known unknowns, known unknowns, an unknown

I think you've got to figure out who the people are But nobody's got a right to be An insubordinate FBI agent. They have no authority apart from the president's authority And the president's authority derives from elections. Right. Because it's authority conferred by the people as expressed by voting.

It's also interesting, too. They have no authority at all. Right. Well, take the Civil Rights Division. I mean, Dylan, I think he's doing a great job. She, a number of those, and that perhaps was maybe the most corrupt division out there, the Civil Rights Division, right? She's my former lawyer, and I can say she's tough.

Yeah, she's tough. And I think there's a lot that we're going to see from, I just had a hearing. I chair the subcommittee on the Constitution of the Judiciary Committee. We just had her come in and say, hey, what are you thinking about doing? Like, what are the things that are on your, on your things, on list of things to do? I think she's, um, obviously universities have been a topic of conversation, but I also think in corporate America, they ought to be, um, ready because this discriminatory DEI stuff flies in the face of federal law.

The civil rights acts of the 1960s were meant to protect people from racial discrimination. Everyone. Everyone. And there are people being racially discriminated against right now. And, and by the way, these struggle sessions. that exists like Coca-Cola, you know, would have a seminar, you know, saying basically from the moderator, how can you be less white? I mean, this is insanity. How can you be less black? How can be less Jewish? How can you be less Hispanic? Like, what the hell is going on?

And it, by the way, our military, I think, I'm on the Armed Services Committee. We would ask, I would ask questions all the time. We would try to, and that went a little underground once it was exposed. But this idea of dividing the room, our military is this great, supposed to be this great meritocracy. Anybody from any background, can you? go serve. You can have a ticker tape parade in New York City as being a war hero. It doesn't matter where you came from, what your race is. We celebrate that. This idea of dividing the room by race and who's the oppressor and who's the oppressed is insane. But I think that Civil Rights Division is a good example. I think they're going to pursue some things that prior regimes didn't pursue,

and I think that will have an important effect on behavior as well. You do think that. I do. Do you have confidence in the Attorney General? Yeah, listen, I think President Trump's put a good team around him, and I have a ton of respect for Pan Bondi. I do. What do you make of the Epstein thing? I think that more needs to be done on transparency. There's no doubt about it. I think any of the credible information that can come out should come out.

I will also say, the Southern District of New York had those files. James Comey's daughter was the lawyer handling this in the Southern District of New York. Weird how that works. Yeah, so I don't know what that means, but I do think that more transparency would be a good thing. You often hear, I mean, now you're in a position to receive classified information. I'm sure you have meetings in the fabled skiff from time to time. We often hear, you know, we can't tell you that for reasons of national security, reasons of privacy, whatever, all these different reasons. we have more than a billion classified federal documents like why yeah we there should be a i agree

with you and i've heard you talk about this before there's just way too much stuff that's hidden behind what's so-called classified a lot of that stuff should never be classified in the first place it's sort of a great way to never have to have um transparency with the american people um and by the way contributes to this lack of trust that you're talking about i think the more information you can get out there, the better. And by the way, I do find it hilarious. We have these, sometimes we have these all-Senator briefings. Yeah. And it's all, nothing comes of it. Like, there's nothing new that wasn't already leaked by somebody in the Pentagon to the New York Times the day before. Now, some of these, you can get in there and ask on a one, by the way, not necessarily the top-level

person, but somebody that's actually doing the work, you can ask some questions in a much more private setting. But some of this stuff is just a way to hide behind. Interestingly, Chris Ray once mentioned that we can't gather information the same way we did prior to the lawsuit. He was referencing Missouri versus Biden because the FBI was very much a part of this censorship regime where they were flagging stuff and calling it Russian disinformation and working with the big tech companies. And he was sort of annoyed that his practices were being curtailed because the court said you can't do that anymore. It's very, you know, for me, having been the guy that filed it and then now sitting

it, you know, when he said that was really an interesting turn of events. How many senators are former AGs? There are probably five, on the Republican side, there's maybe four. There's probably about the same on the, maybe on the Democrats. How much is spent on your average Senate race? Oh, I mean, I would imagine it ranges from... 20 million and you get into... Yeah, right.

Hundreds. Like $200 million in Montana where there's like literally one of the least populated states, a very important state, but was important for them to take the majority. How about just pay off everyone's mortgage and call it a day? It might have been cheaper. So, and then, but the AG race is, I mean, there's a long way of making a short point, which is an AG seems like every bit as important a job as being a U.S. center. It's a very important job.

For sure. And I think the rest of us are waking up to that kind of. How much has spent on those races? Oh, a fraction of that. Right. Fraction of that. And then you get into races where, you know, you've got, you know, red states or blue states, but red states. And it's really about the primary and that's even less expensive, right?

And someone like Dana Nessel in Michigan, I think did more damage to the state than that kind of the Botox governor ever thought about doing. Like, Dan Nussle is like a truly poisonous anti-Christian. and dangerous person. That's my read on her anyway. I don't know her. And she kind of gets ignored and everyone beats up on the governor, the hapless governor.

Well, what's interesting about that is we kind of took a page. So during COVID, you know, Cuomo had instituted a like a tip line essentially to tell on your neighbors. And I think Tim Walls did this actually too. Oh, for sure.

They had this tip line where you snitch. They don't tattletails, yeah. Like you're outside barbecuing without a mask on and all of a sudden the police shows up. I mean, I think this happened in Minnesota. So we kind of turned it on its face when we sued the 65 school districts in Missouri.

We said, we're going to have a tip line, not for the suppression of rights, but to vindicate people's rights. We had a tip line of parents reach out to us of what schools were still forcing their kids to wear masks all day long. And I'll tell you, Tucker, in some of the dark, lonely moments of this fight when, you know, now it seems very settled, like that was a terrible thing to be doing to kids. But back then, not everybody, I would get interviewed by reporters locally in Missouri. jury who were still in their cars because they couldn't go in the studio with masks on asking me questions about you're trying to sue a school district for not why do you want to kill the kids right exactly those are the questions that they would be asking so many kids died of COVID right so with the stories we got coming in were just devastating there were there was a kid in one school district

who um because she are because she refused to take her mask off was meant to sat on a stage by herself in the cafeteria to eat lunch by herself away from the other kids. We got emails from a parent of a deaf child. So this is just killing my kid. My kid can't see any, you know, can't pick up language the way that normally picks up language. The extent to which these adults

who should have known better were just willing to do all this. It's just, it's terrible. Like it's terrible. And so I think again, you just never let that happen again. And by the way, these are the same people that say, well, once we have a vaccine that things will change,

that didn't change anything. And by the way, it didn't affect transmissibility, of course. But then you were censored for saying that, even though it was true. So again, the sins of that era should not be forgotten because we can't let it happen again. Well, they also are the basis of the society we're living in now. It changed everything. It changed people's attitudes toward each other, toward the state, changed the economy, change the culture up and down,

spike the suicide rate, shortened the life expectancy, increased drug and alcohol addiction exponentially. I mean, like, things fell apart. Yeah. Now, I think the one thing, particularly from there, I think you're seeing this with a lot of younger,

especially males, who came up during that era. And by the way, writ large kids of that generation now that grew up with that are much more conservative than any generation that preceded them, because I think they saw some of the, they saw what was happening to their social networks, where they're schooling.

And I think it's part of the reason why you're seeing kind of a, especially young men who are also being told that you're the reason why everything is terrible. I would disagree. I don't think they're conservative as much as they're radical. I think they're way more radical than Republicans understand. I think they're really radical. I don't think they're going to vote for Democrats anytime soon.

But, I mean, I think that their views are so different from your average 75-year-old Republican senator? Yeah, oh, I would agree with that, 100%. Is there an appreciation of that? I don't know that everybody sees that, Tucker. I feel like I try to be a voice for that. Because, you know, and I ran statewide three times and six years in that era. In Missouri, you get a real sense of kind of what's really going on

if you spend the time getting around talking to people. And that's my sense of it, too. So you've been, you felt three elected offices. yeah treasurer a g senator well i was in the state senate before that actually oh gosh yeah am i when i was 31 years old or whatever that was wow yeah i uh yeah i got into it's interesting i um everybody has their own path for me um it wasn't anything i was thinking about and then um my son stephen was born yes in in 2004 and was diagnosed with a rare genetic condition called tuberous sclerosis much there's tumors that form in different organs including his brain which has

infected his development and he has epilepsy seizures nearly every day but he's nonverbal Stephen will be 21 here in a few days but seeing him go through that including a four-hour seizure and being in the ICU for over a week I kind of went through this process as a child oh yeah he's a two three-year-old and he would have him every few months that we would be in the hospital and in the four-hour seizure um they were on the last medication, they could give him. You had to wait 20 minutes. And I remember there was like a red digital clock on the wall that had the seconds, you know, ticking by and had to wait 20 minutes before they could try a new med. And he's seizing the whole time. And

all I could do was be there with him and pray. Jamie had to, my wife had to leave the room. And I would just pray the whole time. And the last one worked. They were about ready to induce a coma. So we almost lost Stephen that day. But it's something. But anyway, you go through for me. How did you keep your family together? Like, How do you, with other children? Yeah, then we later had two daughters. Sophia and Olivia were great, but we wanted to have more kids. I think those things, Tucker, you go one of two ways with your faith and your family.

And for us, it strengthened our family, my wife and I. And even my faith, I went through a process of discernment. Catholic was educated by the Jesuits, and there's this process of sort of like trying to figure out what you want to do with your life. was an inflection point for me. And I wanted to do more than what I was doing a made partner a law firm. That was great. I was building career in a family, but I felt like there was something more to do. Why would that strengthen your faith? It doesn't seem like an obvious response. If you grew up Catholic, you go to Catholic schools, and then the tough, really the toughest thing that can ever happen to a man happens to you. And so why wouldn't you say, well, you know,

God is abandon me. There is no God. This is too horrible. Why would that strengthen your faith? I think it certainly gives you a perspective on what the things you can control and what you can't control. And so much of, I mean, think of the original sin. Really, it's just trying to become God in the Garden of Eden. And I think that it does, look, there's a morning that it never totally goes away when I go to a baseball game or something like that and see a dad with his son that's about Stephen's age or kids go off to college. and do those sorts of things that Stephen will never get to do. Stephen will never be married and have kids. And that's tough as a dad.

That's really tough. But I would say that from that, I've gained a much greater perspective on the things that are important, the things that are real. And he's a happy kid. And there's, when you see him, when he sees you, or sees me, if you were here right now, he'd be walking around. He would give you a big hug and that kind of thing. But the minute that I see him or wake him up in the morning, he's just got that. this just look of joy on his face. And I, um, people have asked me, you know, what do you think heaven is like?

Heaven is that to me, that second or two where I feel that just intense, unadulterated, unconditional love for my boy times eternity. That's, that's, that must be what it's like where all this other stuff is, is not, that's not important, isn't important. And that's the closeness you have with God, your creator forever. And so Stephen has taught me a lot of things. And it was my inspiration to enter all of this and still is. I have heard, I have known parents with a child with Down syndrome say something similar

that for all of the, you know, obviously the tragedy and the sadness and the difficulty that there's something about the child that like just emanates, radiates joy. what i think he's our dymie and i've talked about i think he's our little angel that that teaches us all the time and i think there's a there's an innocence there um with stephen and and um our job is to to love him and protect him and uh there's there's something you know kind of unique about that um so i think for for me it's um this is going to be sorry um this is like the what is it the uh jerry McGuire movie The Rudd-Tidwell

Roy Firestone moment where I cry or something. That's all right. No, but I, it's hard to explain, Tucker. It's such a touchstone

for me that it's what's really important. And so I, there's something that also that I try to think about is this indifference. And when I mean my indifference

is it's not, you don't care about something. It's that whatever in St. Ignatious Loyola talks about this whatever comes your way you make the most of it

and there's a certain freedom that can come from that again that I think Stephen has taught me but for this experience with Stephen I don't know that that's how I would view things and so in that way it's a blessing even though it's hard you know that sometimes like

you know when we went to the inauguration when I got sworn in as the 2000 the U.S. Senator. My whole family went. My parents had never been to the Capitol. I had only been there a couple times. I mean, I was in Missouri, and we just even, we don't fly,

so we drove. We drove from St. Louis to Washington. And looking back on that, I keep thinking, oh, man, that's a lot. The ride there with my kids in the backseat and my wife and I listening to music that we listened to in college for the 12-hour drive,

that was an experience I wouldn't have had, without Stephen having the condition that he has. So there's a lot of blessings that I take from it. I think... So you drove 12 hours across the country with three kids, and you found that a blessing? Yeah. Thank God for Stephen.

No, I mean, that's just so... No, it does sound ridiculous, doesn't it? No, it sounds wonderful. No, it sounds wonderful. And if you counted as a blessing, then that says something about you. So it's perspective, I guess. But anyway, that's a long way of me getting to the answer your question,

which is, yeah. So then I ran for office. and then I felt like there was more to do. And then, and so here I am. So what did you think? So you said you'd only been when you were sworn into the capital a few times. Then you're in this famously cohesive, not to say, clanish body of 100 senators. Like, what did you think of it?

What's the old line? You get there in the first few months you say, how did I get here? And then after that, you say, how did these people get there? No, no. I have immense respect. I mean, I think I've always, look, I love America, and I think our founders were genius and inspired, divinely inspired by the system that was created, that ultimately this checks and balances, separation of powers, all that was meant to protect individual liberty, right? They saw the excesses of government. Ironically, a lot of things we're talking about, we fight back against, that the best way to guard it was you had faction versus faction, right? You had all these things sort of playing off. To guard it, not bestow it.

Correct. And our rights don't come from government. They come from God. And the government's job is. to protect those rights that we're born with, the ability to speak your mind, the ability to defend yourself, the ability to petition, all these things. So I come at it from that perspective. So I treat it as such.

Like I think it's a very important role that you play, and I think our system is important in design to protect this very important experiment, but ultimately human dignity and flourishing. And so that's how I come at it. Look, are there things about it that are frustrating? Absolutely. Like my first two years there,

when Chuck Schumer was in charge. You hear about this world's most deliberative body. The worst thing that I learned is that there isn't as much, like people think Mr. Smith goes to Washington and you're on the floor. There's just that there wasn't a lot of opportunity to be on the floor to offer amendments to find unique coalitions that might exist that people wouldn't expect. That didn't happen. And that was frustrating.

And I think, you know, what is important now, that we have the majority, is that we have more of those opportunities. When I was, you know, I'm very thankful to handle President Trump's recisions package. I didn't put any limits on amendments. I didn't tell anybody don't offer the amendment or we're going to box you out. Offer the amendment. Let's vote on it. Let's see where people kind of land.

So I think that was one observation. The other one is that, interestingly, in my class that came in, we were elected in 2022, it was very much a generational turnover from the people that we were following in those offices. And there's a bit of a bonding. I mean, J.D. and I, Vice President Vance and I became very good friends. We shared a lot of common experiences in life and viewed the world similarly. And other people in the class, you know, Ted Bud and Katie Bread and Pete Ricketts and all. You don't get to share that life experience with many people.

So we go to dinner once a month and talk about like not legislation you're working on, but like real life stuff about our kids and the things that are important. And so I was lucky, I think, that I came in with a group that was about the same age and had same cultural references and things like that. But the average age of the Senate is, you know, several hundred. 60. Yes, 67 and a half or something like that. Yes.

So, you know, and like I play on the congressional. baseball team. I'm, you know, the one senator that, that starts because, you know, for whatever reason. Which, by the way, that I got to, you know, meet a lot of House members that I would never have met otherwise. I mean, I think people think the House and the Senator like working together on all this stuff. I mean, you have relationships, but being at a baseball practice at 545 in the morning, 445 Missouri time, there's a bit of a bonding that can happen with that so you get to know people. And so I just try to meet people where they're at. And I think if you work hard, I have deeply held beliefs that I'm going to fight for, as we've talked about.

But that doesn't mean you have to be an asshole along the way to everybody. And that's not me. So I'm just trying to be as effective as I can for the cause. Is the Republican Party changing under Trump? Yeah, I believe so. I mean, I think you look at the people who've been elected since, say, 2018-ish, right? The Senate is meant to be, you know, it's a third of the Senate is up every two years. the House, the entire House of Representatives can turn over in two years, theoretically, right?

The Senate is designed to be that way. But I do think, I do think it's changing. I think President Trump, I think one of his great contributions to the Republican Party is that it has given people the confidence to fight. I think that that's a good thing. I think that's right. right? Because I think that no longer can we deny that we're up against some benign force out there. I mean, there are people on the other side that have a very different vision of this country than we do. And you better stand up and fight for it. And I think he's given us great cause to do it.

I mean, you just look at this comeback. And it's just sort of like, it's historically, I mean, we're living in a very historic moment. We're talking about it in real time. But when people look back, I mean, he was in office, out of office, came back. That's only happened one time. Nobody alive now has ever seen that. came back and against a backdrop of people trying to throw him in jail, bankrupt him, and assassinate him, and he's back. And I think the difference now, I wasn't there in the first term, but there is a definite recognition, even of some who aren't as aligned as I am with President Trump, that he earned it and that his policy agenda and his nominees should get a fair shake. I don't know if that was true the first time. I don't think it was true the first time.

No. But the Senate is changing. And I think there's an, you know, take four policy perspective, I think there's an ascending view that I subscribe to, which is sort of American realism. It's much more restrained diplomacy. If you have to move on something that's a legitimate threat to your core national interest, you do it swiftly, decisively. But this kind of meandering foreign policy where you can be everywhere all at once all the time that sort of predated the last decade, I think that's not the future. But it's still an ascending view. But I do think the Senate is changing. And I think President Trump has sort of led the way on that. And I think just look at the conversation we're having now about trade. A lot of these things that were, you know, after the

Cold War ended and Soviet communism was defeated in that way, there was never really an adjustment. Like in many ways, Europe and Japan, we allowed them to get back up on their feet, whether it was protection through NATO or these disastrous trade deals. But they had a purpose at the time was for them to get up and be able to stand up on their own two feet. Well, that time is over. I mean, in many ways, right? Like, we shouldn't have ridiculous trade deals. So President Trump wielding tariffs to get a better deal.

That's working. We're getting record investment, trillions of dollars in this country. And then also, you know, look at NATO now. Like, they're actually, like, we'll see if they actually do it. But one of the reasons why I went to the Munich Security Conference, I don't have the same foreign policy view of most people that go there, but I wanted to tell them the truth, not what they wanted to hear. I think so many like the adulation and the red carpet that gets rolled out and you're treated as American, whatever, over there, hero.

That wasn't my purpose. I wanted them to understand that there's a shift happening. We are pivoting. We're going to protect the homeland. We understand China. The 21st century is going to be defined by this great competition with communist China. We have to win that fight. And you need to stand up on your own two feet and much more than you ever have before.

And I think it's important than more people deliver that message. So I do think that's part of the transformation of the Republican Party right now. And also rooted, and I'm very comfortable in this place now because I grew up in a blue collar neighborhood. My dad works seven days a week in the midnight shift. This ability to connect with working people to fight for them, not the corporate interest, but the people who are working hard, who just want their kids to have a better life than them. They've been vilified for so long. They've been looked over in so-called flyover country for too long. Their time is now, and I think President Trump has a very unique way of connecting. And as I said earlier,

I think what people want right now more than anything is authentic leadership. And so it's incredible time to be there. And I think this is where it's headed and I'm just grateful to be a part of it. As honestly or sort of impartially or non-emotionally as you can, can you describe where you think the Democratic Party is going? I don't think they've hit rock bottom yet. Okay. Actually, I think that you look at the people that are filling up the arenas.

It's Bernie Sanders. It's AOC. It's this Mandami guy who's literally a communist running. He's going to be the mayor of New York probably. Looks that way. So I think they're still searching. They don't have a message. They don't have a messenger.

They're still obsessed with President Trump, with Trump-Drangement syndrome. They've sort of learned nothing from the last go-around with all this. And, you know, just things that used to be, I mean, there used to be kind of a, by the way, Washington Consensus isn't always, it's usually a bad thing. But there used to be kind of a belief that borders were important. Yeah. I don't think they believe that anymore. I think if you really press the rank and filed Democrat in Congress, it's, it's, it's, they believe in mass migration.

They don't think that lines on a map, they think that lines on a map are arbitrary. They'll never win with that. Right. I know. And I don't think they'll get away from it. So I think you saw some self-reflection after the election, but they're falling back into the same. Mass migration has made everyone's life worse in this country. It has. And I think that you look at the Overton window on that now versus 10 years ago when President Trump came down on the escalator. It's pretty dramatic. It is dramatic. In a good way, right? So I think that oftentimes we get caught up in the daily news cycle. What is the thing of the day? But if we take a step back and we look at how the Republican Party has been transformed, how the country has sort of woken up from this fever dream

I talk a lot about in the book, like I think that's all positive. Yes. There's more work to do, but I'm optimistic. I think that's wise. You're taking a bigger view of it, and a lot has changed, a lot, and it's good. Here's my warm... And by the way, quick, the other thing that's different, when I was growing up, it was in college in the 90s, this political correctness thing was sort of beginning. And I saw it, and sometimes I would take classes knowing that I would, I was even a contrarian back then, because I loved a good debate. and I've always been pretty conservative. I always was a little jealous of liberals

in that they kind of had the high ground on free speech. Oh, yeah. You know? They were right. And I'm glad now and particularly proud of the work, as we're talking about in the book, of I think we have taken that mantle now. They've abandoned it.

They don't believe in it anymore. It's all about power and control. And I think if we maintain this path, Of fighting for people's right to say things, even if you don't agree with them, is a very important thing for us to maintain the connection with this new coalition that's been created in the Republican Party. The number of people who believe that on either side is really small because speech is, of course, a threat to the people in power, no matter what side they're on. That's why liberals went from being, you know, big donors to the ACLU to, to, you know, controlling Facebook. So, because they took power. So, like, nobody wants to be challenged, I think.

only the truly principled, I think you're in the group, are willing to accept challenge to their power, you know, without trying to shut people up. My concern is that Mamdani, who I think is a, you know, I don't think much of him. However, I think his main appeal may be quality of life worries that people have. And I'm, do you think, I know this has been a big issue for you, but there aren't that many of you actually in the Senate talking about. about people's lives. Like somebody in power needs to address declining quality of life in this country or else there will be a lot more mom donies.

Yeah, I agree with that. And, you know, I think especially for young people who are, you know, they're coming out of college with a lot of debt, they don't, you know, they may not be able to afford a house or have a family, you know, the way things are tracking until they're in their 30s somehow. That's a very different America. Yeah. Not a better one. No, I agree with that.

And I think part of it is understanding the moment that we're in. And you think about the ability to have a one-income family and like that, very difficult to imagine now for a lot of people. And people can choose to do it or not do it, but you ought to be able to have the option. I think a lot of opportunity hopefully will come for bringing manufacturing back. There are twice as many people that work in government than have manufacturing jobs in this country. I think the number was 90,000 factories have left the United States since NAFTA. Yeah. Like, that's dramatic.

And I think that- So, Perot was right. There was a giant. Uh-huh. And by the way, what's interesting about Missouri, you know, I'm in Maine with you. Maine and Missouri have a connection because the Missouri compromise, of course. Missouri and Maine came in at the same time, although Missouri took a little bit longer. And on the state seal, there's a belt buckle that holds the seal together.

and it was basically telling the federal government that we retain our independence and we may leave because you're screwing us over so like we would unbuckle the buckle and not that I'm not advocating for that I'm just saying even back then 40 years later they found it no one's allowed to learn right right right but like no but the point is

it's like this even back then Missourians were skeptical of a government telling them how to live their lives a thousand miles away so I think that that it's important for us to kind of forge this path where we are providing

more opportunity for people but Missouri's always had this kind of independence streak if you look at the states where Perot did particularly well was in place like Missouri Papy Buchanan somebody that I listened to

growing up and when I was my dad I said my dad worked seven days a week in the midnight shift it also meant that he was home like after school so you could like go to my games and played a lot of sports

or we would watch Crossfire on the one television when you had one television in the living room and I would watch Jack Kemp and Pap Buchanan And they kind of thundered away. And they were fighting for the little guy.

Oh, yeah. They were fighting for the little guy. And he had Ronald Reagan, you know, of course, then trying to build this coalition too. So anyway, the punchline is, Perot was right. This giant sucking sound was real. Letting China into the world trade organization was a huge disaster. But it doesn't need to be that way. And I think that's the hope with advanced manufacturing that we can bring those jobs home.

It won't look the same as the 1960s. It won't be an assembly line. in Detroit in that way. But you just think of, I just think people are looking for, for more opportunities. And I think the people that I grew up around, you know, their parents were, or truck drivers or cops or factory workers. And I didn't know any lawyers growing up, not one. And, but I thought the law gave structure, which kind of, and people, real people,

normal people to pursue their dreams, whatever that was, which is why that's what I pursued. But the people I grew up around, they got dealt this double whammy, which was their jobs went overseas. And then as they're looking for new jobs, those wages get undercut through illegal immigration and mass migration. So it's no wonder people are looking for something different. And we better be the ones that provide that. And I think that we're on the right track. But there are warning signals out there that we better be the ones with the solutions. Because Mondami is kind of a kook and Akami, but maybe there'll be somebody smarter than him. Yeah, it's the biggest city in the country. So last question.

about that. I know you're probably not going to drinks with Democrats every night or anything, but are there any Democratic members of the House or Senate who you're pretty sure going to run for president? Because of course, wide open on the other side. Oh, yeah, you can look at the theatrics

right now. The ones that are stomping on the floor a little bit more, I think, you know, Cory Booker is making some moves. Actually? I don't think. I mean, if you're Chris Murphy. Really? Yeah. So, and Look, I think in many ways...

So we're safe. Right. I think in many ways, though, it is a competition to be the greatest resistor. That's what's going on right now. Yeah. And I don't think that's right. That's such a dead end. I know, but they think it is.

And it's also why, like, you know, some of these nominations, which are, you know, I think the last time we had to vote, like, roll call vote on the ambassador to Uruguay was like 50 years ago. But we're doing all that now because the Democrats view this sort of absurd. construction as the path. And I don't think that Uruguay is like a more important ally than it was 50 years ago. No, that's not why we're voting. The stakes aren't higher in Uruguay. Right. Yeah.

So I think that there's, in Chuck Schumer, by the way, I don't know that he runs again in two years. But he hears the footsteps of AOC. Oh, of AOC. So that's where the party's going. They're terrified of that. They're terrified of it because where the energy is on their side. And by the way, that's that's good news for us because it's just crazy stuff. It's the same old, you know, you know, race essentialism and control and it just, you know, this green New Deal nonsense that would last forever.

If you had a modern Democrat, which is to say an old-fashioned Democrat. Harry Truman, maybe. Yeah, no, but that's exactly right. Or the earlier version of Dick Gepard from your state. Yeah, sure. The, you know, pro-life, pro-labor, like that guy could win, I think. They've all been run out. This is a good example, actually, in Missouri.

So Missouri was this ultimate bellwether state for 100 years and picked the winner, I should say, every time but once. Adelae Stevens and the only exception. It was a great bellwether. There were rural Democrats everywhere, everywhere. In fact, most of outstate Missouri was blue with pro-life, pro-gun Democrats. They're all gone. They're literally all gone.

Probably pro-gun pro-labor. Yeah, that too. And you can't find them anywhere in Missouri. They're just in St. Louis and Kansas City, and they're pretty radical. They're competing to be the most, like during COVID. Like, you had the mayor of St. Louis, the mayor of Kansas City competing to be the most woke, COVID restrictor in the country. Like, that was the competition, right? So the incentive structure is really messed up for them right now because the only way you do it is if you're one of the lefties.

Everyone hates that stuff. Yeah, but in their circle, again, I think this is the, you know, the Trump Derangement Syndrome stuff. It's so hard for them to get rid of. Did donors push that on them? Oh, yeah, I think that they're, I mean, Soros, what Soros has funded, they chase that. Look at the prosecutors that did all the damage across the country. Yeah. You know, you talk about an arbitrage of the system.

Very little money went to disrupting a lot of our lives. So, yeah, but I think, but now in Missouri, there's literally no Democrat representing rural Missouri. And the margins, like in my last race and some of the counties say in the boot heels, like you get 86% of the vote. Really? What were your numbers in St. Louis in Kansas City? Well, I'm from the St. Louis area. So, like, in St. Louis County, which is where I live, was able, you know, I've been more effective of kind of holding the line. But, you know, in St. Louis City, it's, you know, 80, 20 you're going to lose.

But the city itself is 300,000. The metro area is 3 million. But St. Louis County has a million people. And you just basically hold on as much as you can appeal to people. And then, you know, you're running up the score everywhere else in a dramatic way. it used to be the dynamic was they did much better in rural Missouri, and then they'd get into the cities, and then that's what we'd get them over the top at midnight by, you know, a certain number of votes.

Boy, that pattern you just described as everywhere. Everywhere. Yeah. Does that stay the same for a while? I think so for a while. I tell people, I warn people all the time that nothing is static. I think that's the dynamic that we're in, at least for right now. And like I said, I don't think, I don't know how to gauge the mid-term.

terms, Tucker. Like, I don't know the House races as much and the redistricting the thing's going to have a play. But the one thing that's true is the Democrats have gerrymandered these seats for a long time. They've got nowhere else to go. So, like, and by the way, the idea that we, that you don't have to be a citizen to be counted in the census is insane. California would lose seats, no doubt. Can that be fixed? Yeah, it could be. You could ask the question on the census. And only that would be counted then in the next census cycle. Now, there would be legal challenges of that. But I think you can do that. And by the way, it has enormous impact on like federal dollars and how they're doled out.

But I think if the redistricting will affect the numbers. So I don't know about the midterms. I have confidence that that will hold the House. The Senate will remain in Republican hands. There's just not that many seats that are in like battleground territory. But longer term, I think we're in a strong position. But we're also going to have to be very mindful, which I love that we've got this new coalition that's kind of, I joked when I, I spoke at the convention last year that you had kid rock Hulk Hogan and normal people on the

stage this is exactly the party that I've been waiting for my whole life and we've got it and so I want to work as hard as I can to help you just don't want the party of Bill Gates to steal economic populism from you correct that's when you lose yeah no and they'll be some people will be smart enough to understand it I think again they're there um you notice how like Beto O'Rourke and all these guys are like cussing more often it's like oh I've noted it's like if you can be Like, it's like faking authenticity. I know. It's ridiculous.

I'd love to talk to Beto's wife. I haven't, never met her. But I wonder if she's impressed because I bet she's not. I bet she thinks it's phony as hell. I bet she really does. I bet nobody has more. I'm just guessing. I've never talked to Mrs. O'Rourke, and I doubt her name is Mrs. O'Rourke.

But she's got another name because she's so embarrassed. But I bet she's more contemptuous of him than anything. Yeah. So I think they've, again, I don't think they've fleshed all this out yet. And I think they're in a real. troublesome spot, right? You've got this kind of Star Wars bar of leftists that they can't get out of the room. And it's pushing everybody to the left. And I think people will reject that. So there was no moment, because remember for the month after the election there were Democrats,

including Gavin Newsom, and we're like, really, this isn't working for us and we should try something new that never went anywhere. No, I mean, Rob Emanuel is kind of talking that way as a diagnosis. but I don't, but in order to get the nomination, that like post-mortem assessment will get you nowhere because I don't think their base wants to hear that. I think that's right. Their base wants them to fight over everything right now. That's not where the American people are. That's the good news, right?

Because Trump got a mandate. He got the popular. And do you see that in the Senate? Yeah. Ooh. Yeah. And for that place, you know, for that place to operate with 60 votes, that's a, that's a different environment right like we're we're dealing with and by the way been very successful i think

of the three stages so far which is getting trump's team in place cabinet that at a thousand on that yeah reconciliation which by the way not a lot of people have they talked to the one big beautiful bill the name but like you've got for the first time school um school choice provisions in there more for working families with 529s to save you've got um no tax on tips no tax on overtime for the for the truck driver that's working overtime or the waitress that's working two shifts like that's a big deal like that's that is now there's other stuff in there but you frontloaded money for border like for deportations more ice agents and beds like that's all in there you frontload a lot of that so there's a lot of wins there and then we get to rescissions

which which i handled and that was you know probably more difficult than it should have been but we got it done those are the three big things so far so there's more to do but i think we could do all that with 51 votes right because of just the way the the staff statutes are drafted. But if the Democrats are really in this mode of resistance, it's going to be, you know, who knows how this all plays out. Because right now, Chuck Schumer doesn't see an incentive of working with Republicans on anything. And I think that ultimately burns them. I mean, Trump after the midterm is, you know, can't run again. So at that point, if the Democrats messages, we hate Trump, does that get you the presidency? No, I think it's a, I think you're right.

It's a midterm play, but they have long-term problems because that is defined their party. And in many ways, this lawfare that was exhibited was all just a symptom of the same problem, right? Is they're singularly obsessed with President Trump? And every policy position he takes, they take the opposite. Again, try to throw him in jail, censoring anybody who believes the same thing he believes. So they have a real problem. It's a structural problem that I don't, it's easy to die. I don't know how they fix it because there are no Dick Gephardt's walking around.

Right. Or Bill Clinton. Yeah. You know. Right. Senator, thank you very much for spending all this time. The book is The Last Line of Defense, how to beat the left in court, which you have done. Thank you. Thanks for having me. We want to thank you for watching us on Spotify, a company that we use every day. We know the people who run it, good people. While you're here, do us a favor. Hit follow and tap the bells, you never miss an episode. We have real conversations, news, things that actually matter. Telling the truth always, you will not miss it if you follow us on Spotify and hit the bell. We appreciate it. Thanks for watching.