More Hunter plea deal fallout, Schiff gets censured

You've read the shocking headlines, heard the troubling statistics, but what's the real story behind our country's crime epidemic? Starting Monday, July 3rd, the Fox News Rundown presents America's Crime Crisis. As we take a look at crime in America, we'll investigate its root causes, the impact it's having in our daily lives, and the most effective ways to keeping our communities safe. Starting Monday, July 3rd, listen and download it at FoxNewsRundown.com or wherever you get your podcasts. From High Atom, Fox News Headquarters.

In New York City. Always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kill Me. Hi, everybody. Welcome to the latest moments of the Brian Kill Me Show.

So glad you're here. Mayor Francis Suarez is going to be in the studio in a matter of moments from Miami, but he's going to be in the studio now. He wants to be president of the United States. We did get some news, too. Will heard another great guest of ours is also going to run for president.

He declared that on CBS. Jonathan Turley at the bottom of the hour to unwind all these cases. Big day for the president. He had to get up and be working before 10. He doesn't like to do that.

He is holding a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Modi of India. He greeted him in front of the White House. And then tonight there'll be a big state dinner for him. Largest democracy in the world, but some disturbing alliances, one with Russia. And I hope the president brings that up.

My sense is he's. Won't.

So let's get to the big three.

Now, with the stories you need to know, it's Brian's big three. Number three. There's an infinite number of genders. I think, depending on your culture, there are a lot of different genders that exist. And I can also say that it's a term that's evolving.

If you look at young people today, they really don't lean into the binary of only woman and man. Yes, please tell me that's not true. Kelly Robinson on Capitol Hill yesterday, the LBGQ hearings on the Hill yesterday were quite something. I will bring you the high and the lows as the Biden administration looks to include regulations on transgender issues in schools. And there's so many female athletes who said this is not fair.

I'm one of those who agree with that. Number two. I uh made very clear that we would have deep concerns about uh PRC, intelligence, or military activities. in Cuba. This is something we're going to be monitoring Very, very closely.

Yeah, the 2024 candidates need the China policy, no doubt about it. They are our all-time most formidable foe, and the administration still thinks they are a friend. As it becomes clear, they are moving into our backyard in Cuba, into every aspect of our lives. The Mayor of Miami on that. Number Why?

It's double standard. Anyone else in America whose last name isn't Biden or Clinton would have gone to jail, and they would have gone to jail three or four years ago for what Hunter Biden did. More Hunter plea deal at Fallout and more questions about the overseas deals and the investigation. How could you investigate Hunter and not use his laptop? How can you investigate Hunter and not talk to his business partners?

Your move, James Comer. Plus, John Durham speaks after a three-year investigation and brings his report to life. I'll bring you the highlights on that. Last week, the Miami Mayor, Francis Juarez, very successful over there in that very successful state of Florida, says, hey, I want to get the Republican nomination and be the next president of the United States. And he's in the studio now.

Mr. Mayor, great to see you. It's great to be with you, Brian.

So you would think after Beckham, you get a stadium for Beckham, and then you get Messi to play for Inter-Miami, that'll be enough for you. But it's the next logical move, right? It's to be president. Listen, after doing what is the best stadium deal in America, we just saw in Buffalo, they give The bills, I think, a billion and a half dollars. I think in Tennessee, the Titans got like a billion two.

And I think in Nevada, I think the team's about to get a billion dollars. In Miami, we pay $0. We gave the inter-Miami team $0. They're paying us fair market value for the land that we lease to them. It's going to generate for the city conservatively $2 billion in revenue.

So we do things a little differently in Miami. We actually make money off these stickers.

Well, now you're, they were struggling this year. They weren't selling tickets like they should, but now it's the hottest ticket, sports ticket in America. It's the hottest sports ticket in America, and it benefits all of America because now every single MLS team is more valuable. The tickets are certainly higher everywhere, merchandise, all that. And we won a worldwide competition.

And I think what's exciting about Miami that can be scaled nationally is we've created the most dynamic city in America. And now our job is to create the most dynamic, recreate the most dynamic country in the world. Silicon Valley is dipping these days. You're trying to recruit those firms, but I know you're heavily into crypto. You get paid in crypto.

Do you regret diving so into it? Is the bubble bursting? No, not at all, because not every single company succeeds, but the technology that it's based on will succeed, right? When you think about blockchain, when you think about fractionalization of ownership and debt and equity, that's going to create prosperity for people. And I've often said, I just said it on your show on Fox News.

In Biden's America, the poor get poor. And they get poor because of runaway inflation based on runaway spending and runaway interest rates.

So if you're a poor person and you have your money in a bank account, your purchasing power is going down. And now you've got to borrow money, which means your cost of borrowing is going up.

So you're getting squeezed on both ends. It's untenable. And we've got to create opportunities for people to be successful. And I think crypto and all kinds of technological, whether it's AI, Quantum, virtual reality, you know, the space wars, all these kinds of technologies are the technologies of the future. We need to position our country to be number one in all of them.

All right.

So, the major issue facing this country, but you see it in Miami, and it is China. This is not the Soviet missile crisis with Khrushchev. You have a crisis now. They're going to put military hardware. They're going to start doing some training in Cuba.

Here is the Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, when he was confronted by the Wall Street Journal story, Cut 26. I made very clear that we would have deep concerns about PRC intelligence or military. Uh activities. in Cuba. This is something we're going to be monitoring Very, very closely, and we've been very clear about that.

And we will protect our homeland. We will protect our interests. What does that mean, monitoring closely? Come on. Deep concerns.

I'm sure the Chinese are quaking in their boots based on the Biden administration's posture in the world. I mean, it's a posture of retreat. It's a posture of weakness. We saw the incompetent withdrawal from Afghanistan. I'm convinced that that motivated Vladimir Putin to do what he did in Ukraine.

Now it's cost us $100 billion plus of resources.

So it's a disastrous foreign policy. It's a foreign policy that comes from Obama's B team, which is the one that's really running the Biden administration, a bunch of academics who have absolutely no concept of what's going on in the real world. When you think about Cuba as an example, right on July 11th, a few years ago, they had a spontaneous uprising. What did the Biden administration do? Nothing.

Nothing. They said they were going to do something. They did nothing. And now you've converted an ideological threat into an increasingly national security threat. That is something unforgivable.

And by the way, that's just the tip of the iceberg when you consider China pushing fentanyl through our border. That's killing 80 to 90,000 Americans. That's the equivalent of a 747 crashing every single day. When you consider China's investment in our hemisphere, right, which is pushing socialism, it used to be Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua.

Now it's Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia. I mean, it is endless. And all that. But Mr. Mary, what blows me away is that this administration embraces Lula of Brazil.

The Argentinian leader was just over here. Colombia, we're not acknowledging that. They were going to buy oil from Venezuela. Yeah. Right?

I mean, this is. An administration that they must, at some level, agree with this sort of socialism. I mean, I was just watching something earlier today where the former president condemned socialism, and half of the Democrats didn't clap during the State of the Union. I mean, look, this concept where government is the answer to all problems. I'm very fortunate in Miami, and we're very fortunate in this country because many of us came to this country fleeing persecution.

My parents did. And there, a leader said, Give me all your property, give me all your businesses, and don't worry, we're going to make everybody equal. And he did. He made everybody equally poor and equally miserable. You held on to your Etzel, and that was the car you drive around.

Yeah, exactly. But the one thing that's pretty clear is that you guys came over the most successful, if you look at Little Havana, it's the most successful immigration movement since the Pilgrims. You know why? Because we embraced American entrepreneurship, American free markets. We realized.

That if you in this country, if you study, if you work hard, if you risk capital, which is fundamentally American, you have a great opportunity to be successful. Part of the reason why Miami is so successful is I dare to be different. When New York rejected Amazon after they competed for the Amazon prize and won the Amazon prize, then they rejected it. It's 50,000 high-paying jobs for New Yorkers. It's not just about the 50,000 jobs, it's what is the signal.

The signal you're sending is: you want to create high-paying jobs here? We don't want you. California, same problem. You had a tweet, you know, you know what, Elon Musk. I can't even say it.

My wife gets upset with me if I say what the actual tweet said. It says F Elon Musk, right? And he replied, Message received and left California for Austin. And why is that important? Again, it's not just because you're taking out the richest person in the country.

It's because what you're saying, the signal is: if you start a company in your garage, you risk everything, you spend your life savings, you know, you spend all this time away from your family to build a company and you're successful. You're going to be a pariah in your community. That is not fundamentally American. I answered the question of what if we move Silicon Valley to Miami with how can I help? How can I roll out the red carpet?

Lower taxes to the lowest level. Keep people safe. The lowest homicide rate since 1964 on a per capita basis this year were 40% below that. And then I said, you know what? We've got to create the economy of the future.

So we're number one in tech job growth, number one in wage growth, and we have the lowest unemployment in America. Are you a lawyer? Yes. You're a lawyer on top of that. Yeah.

So when did you decide I want to try politics? You know, I sort of backed into it. My dad, as you know, was the first Cuban mayor of Miami from 1985 to 1993. My dad, you know, is one of my heroes. And I didn't really want to get into politics because it was nasty.

And I think, you know, what you see in today's day and age, part of the reason why, you know, there's not a lot of talent in politics because people just don't want to do it. They don't want to subject themselves to it. They think it's unfair, the criticism. And I understand them. And particularly if you're a Republican, right?

It seems like you're getting beat up every single day. Particularly by your hometown of papers. And, you know, and so I sort of backed into it. I had just been married. I had a small business.

And I said, you know what? I don't want to live in regret. And so I ran for office. I got elected by 260 votes. I was the only candidate not supported by the labor unions that won that year.

And I always say if 131 people would have changed their mind, we wouldn't be having this conversation. No, you were leading the mayors, the group of mayors. Were you the president of the Mayors' Association? Then I became mayor in 2017. I got elected by 85%.

And I just finished my term of a year and a half of being president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, all the mayors in the country. What did you learn from talking to other mayors about their different challenges? I got to see a lot of America, and I think a lot of the challenges in urban cities, which I think is an opportunity for Republicans based on our model of success. Because the Democratic model is blowing up in our face.

San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York. Major big box stores that are closing, which impacts people, lawlessness all over the place, homelessness that's rampant, crime that's rampant. We reduce homelessness by 90% in the city of mine. We have 608 homeless. We're the only ones that have dared to say we don't want to get to zero homeless in our city.

We eradicated homelessness for veterans. And, you know, these are goals that you have to establish, and you've got to create models that you can implement in other cities. And I do think it's a great opportunity. Look, I think my candidacy for president presents three major opportunities: more Hispanics, which are needed, more people from cities, and young voters. Can you believe that we lost voters under 30 by 26 points at Joe Biden?

That's crazy. Right. To Joe Biden, who's 100 years old.

So a lot of people say, okay, yeah, your future's bright. Yeah, you made a huge impact. Man, he's comfortable in front of the camera. I love his biography. Why not take an interim step?

Why go from mayor to president? You know, DeSantis' term limited out anyway, whether he was president or not. Look, it's a legitimate question. I think you have to analyze the opportunities as they come. And what I see now is a field of candidates who often define themselves by what they're against instead of what they're for.

For me, I want to present voters with a fresh and different perspective. I want to talk to them about my vision for the future, which is a positive, unifying vision. I want to talk to them about how I'm going to create prosperity for themselves and their children. I want to talk to them about how I'm going to deal with generational challenges that other people have ignored, like the deficit, immigration, and the rise of the people.

So, would you say it's like going from single-A baseball to the majors? And once in a while, you have a Dwight Gooden that can do it. And it's going against the time. Yeah, I think that's a fair comparison. I mean, look, it's been funny.

I've been in this race for five days, and I'm starting to get used to the 100-mile per hour fastballs, right? And then, of course, once you get used to it, The hundred-mile-power fast rules, and they start throwing sliders and change-ups and all this other stuff. No, so look, I agree. I think it's a tall lift because it's never been done before. But we just had a president who had never even been in politics, right?

Then, before that, we had a president who didn't have much private sector experience and been in the Senate for a couple of years, right? What you don't want is a president that's been in Washington for 40 years, like a current president, right? Who's never had any private sector experience? That is the kind of experience you don't want. You want a president who is someone who's run a government on the one hand, but also has private sector experience, which I'm really proud of.

So, you have in the beginning, you're like, Yeah, I'm not buying this Trump thing. And the more you've had a chance to get to know him, you like Trump more than you do DeSantis. Yeah, I think that's fair. I mean, he has a much better personality. I've talked to him a couple of times, and he's an engaging, charismatic guy, which I think I am too.

And I think we sort of connect on that level. I read his book, The Art of the Deal, and I realized that I started in real estate as a real estate attorney. He's a real estate developer.

So there's a commonality there. We both have tough dads. My dad, you know, has two graduate degrees from Harvard. My dad's written nine books and speaks five languages.

So and he's a and he's a tough guy, but a loving guy. And so, and one that we admire.

So I think we have some things in common that I didn't know we had before. I think the one thing for me is, you know, I grew up a product of the Reagan 80s, right? And I did my announcement speech in the Ronald Reagan library. And I just remember a time when the president was someone that I could aspire to be, that I could look up to. And I think I have a nine-year-old son, and I want.

I want the president to be someone that fits that mold. And he's not. I think I fit that mold. Let me just be clear. I fit that mold.

And I think that's why I'm running. I want to be different. And I want children in America to have someone to look up to and hopefully set a good example for them. And, Mr. Mayor, last question is: you got to run.

If you're in New York City, thanks for dropping by. Oh, great. But if you get close, start closing the gap. The former president's going to come after you. Are you ready?

Listen, that's part of the business. Like I said, you got to get used to the high heat get brushed off. Look, I'm ready to have a positive, inspiring conversation with this country. I want to change the conversation of this country. How much time do we spend, Brian, talking about divisive and issues?

How much time do we talk about distractions, things that are not going to benefit the people of this country? I want to have a better conversation. That's why I'm running for president. And we have a common enemy, economic and military. It is China.

And I think both sides will get together on that. And Biden has got to get a good idea. It's America. It's not one that's going to benefit our people. All right.

Mr. Mayor, thanks so much. Great to see you. Good to see you. Best of luck, and I hope to catch up with you on the trail.

Next time I bring Messi and David. If you don't mind. Of course not. That will be good. One of the two will be good.

One of the two.

Okay. Back in a moment. Newsmakers and newsbreakers. Here at first on the Brian Kill Meat Show. From the Fox News Podcasts Network.

I'm Ben Dominich, Fox News contributor and editor of the Transom.com daily newsletter. And I'm inviting you to join a conversation every week. It's the Ben Dominich Podcast. Subscribe and listen now by going to FoxnewsPodcasts.com.

Okay. He's so busy, he'll make your head spin. It's Brian Killmead. I mean, there is information, obviously, in the report that was prepared by Director Mueller and whatnot, but as to collusion or conspiracy, I'm not aware of any. Talk to the director of the CIA, the deputy director of the CIA, the director of NSA.

Um uh and people within the uh FBI. And there was no such information that they had in their holdings at the time they opened Crosswire Hurricane.

So that when they opened it up, that might have been a conspiracy, but when they found out there was no there there and that it was trumped up by. Hillary Clinton, who paid for the dossier that Christopher Steele put together and couldn't verify, even when he was given a million-dollar incentive to verify it, he couldn't. And you didn't speak to Charles Dolan, who was the Russian contact who provided the information that couldn't be verified in the dossier. But there was no master plan, he found. But once the plan was implemented, it should have been detected and stopped.

Instead, Hillary Clinton was later to be fined. It cost us millions of dollars and cost an administration a tremendous distraction. And just thinking, keeping this in mind. Everywhere Trump went for four years, he heard it from world leaders that he's illegitimate, that the Russians put him in there, that he combined with Vladimir Putin, who he really wanted to build a tower for and promised a penthouse for in Moscow. That is the reason why Trump got elected.

Until they found out and the report started coming out from the Mueller report to the Horowitz IG report to now the Durham report. that it was all synthetic, it was all trumped up and it should have been stopped. Bad for the country. And for Democrats to continue to attack Durham, attack Horowitz, two guys who are steeped in Democratic politics, crazy. Information you want, truth you demand.

This is the Brian Kill Me Show.

So as I said from the moment of my appointment as Attorney General, I would leave this matter in the hands of the United States Attorney. who was appointed by the previous president. and assigned to this matter by the previous administration, that he would be given full authority to decide the matter as he decided was appropriate. And that's what he's done. And if you have any further questions about that matter, you should direct him to the U.S.

Attorney. To explain his decision. David Weiss, and of course, that's the plea deal that seems to have gotten. If we're to think it's concluded, Hunter Biden does not do any jail time. He pays $100,000 for back taxes, and he goes on probation, and on the gun charge, slap on the wrist at the very least, at the most.

But how do you possibly look at this case and say I've done a thorough investigation over the course of five years and not talk to the business partner, the man who structured the whole deal, and Tony Bobolinski or Devin Archer? How do you possibly look at this entire case and not be able to answer the question, did you look through the laptop to see if there's any criminal activity? How does that make any sense, being that the FBI had it since 2019? Jonathan Churley joins us right now. Jonathan, a lot to discuss, but I wanted to get you on what we know about this plea deal.

Do you believe from what you see that this investigation is over on Hunter?

Well, you know, the Justice Department often says that there's an ongoing investigation because it gives them added powers to do things like refuse documents to the US Congress and to deny certain information to the defense.

So it's fairly common to see that tagline added to indictment announcements. But what's also clear is that the Biden team, the Hunter Biden team, has said that their understanding is that this matter is, quote, resolved. And what's also notable is that his lawyer said, we were never asked about the laptop. We don't even know if the laptop laptop played any role in the case.

Well, that's those things suggest a lot. They suggest that our worst Predictions are coming true that it does not appear that the Department of Justice seriously pursued influence peddling and any related crimes. It also is abundantly clear that they have not charged under FARO, which is the Foreign Agents Registration Act. That was one of the things that the White House, I think, feared the most. By having your son illegally operating as a foreign agent puts him in the category with Paul Manafort.

Many of us. Did not see significant differences between Manafort and Hunter Biden. And the Department of Justice is just completely silent on it. They just didn't charge Farah, even though they were handing out Farah charges like candy during the Trump administration. Yeah, I mean, if you are an unregistered foreign agent, that's what Steve Wynne got caught up in and he was exonerated, right?

Yeah, and this administration has been, the Department of Justice, I should say, has been aggressive in. FARA prosecutions. And what's also interesting is that this is perhaps the most serious form of a FARA violation because you're not just having someone accused of being an unlicensed or unpermitted foreign agent. You have someone who is doing that job in order to engage in influence peddling, to get access to the Vice President then of the United States.

So if anything, it's more serious. But there's no explanation from the Department of Justice as to why for Hunter Biden, this did not appear to be something worthy of a charge. Five year investigation. They had no time. There was just a bit of a rush.

I want you to hear from Bradford Cohen. Bradford Cohen represents a rapper called Kodak Black. He also falsified a gun application. He put a phone and social security number because he knows he had a record in the past, wouldn't be able to get it.

So he used it to buy three guns. And he spent months in prison. Here's his lawyer last night, cut five. 46 months for the exact same crime, the exact same thing that Hunter Biden is not even pleaing to. He's actually getting a diversion program, which you almost never see diversion programs in federal court.

I mean, it is less than 1% of people that plea that actually get a diversion program. I've only seen it once in my 26 years, and it was on a case that was so horrible it actually should have been dismissed. That's how bad the case was. But in order to save face, they gave a diversion program. It has never ever happened on a gun charge.

And I would challenge the individual who gave him that offer to see how many times they've offered diversion programs on gun charges. What is your thought? Is he overstating it? Yeah, I'm not too sure. I haven't seen a lot of these charges.

I do think that a lot of these violations are not charged. But my biggest problem that I have with it, which is what I said. Immediately after the plea, was that this is an odd diversion program. Grant because it's treating him like he's currently a drug addict. He has said that he has not been a drug addict for years.

And so they're treating him like he's a junkie they just pulled off the street. He's going to go into a program that's dealing with his drug addiction that he no longer has.

So that it just doesn't seem to make any sense to me. I want to bring you to John Durham, who was attacked rigorously by Democrats for doing a report. And by the way, he's been lawed and given awards by Eric Holder and Janet Reno.

So, not many people, nobody that I saw was complaining when John Durham was picked to do an investigation into the charges that led to the long investigation of Donald Trump and this Russia probe. Here is what John Durham concluded: Cut six. I mean, there is information obviously in the report that was prepared by Director Mueller and whatnot. But as to collusion or conspiracy, I'm not aware of any. I talked to the director of the CIA, the deputy director of the CIA, the director of NSA, and people within the FBI.

And there was no such information that they had in their holdings at the time they opened Crossfire Hurricane.

So if I played that for you in 2017 and I would say, I'll put you in a time machine, Jonathan Turley, this is going to be the 2023 review. We were in the middle of that tornado of Russia information. Did you think we were going to get to a day when a long investigation showed there was no there there?

Well, I think it's an extraordinary moment. It just happens to be a moment that none of the media wants to cover because the media was in on this. Story, you know, all of these people that did nothing but cover the Russian collusion. Case and put on just a host of experts that literally named over a dozen crimes that had been established. None of those crimes, of course, were ever charged because there was no Russian collusion as they described it.

And what was fascinating about the hearing is I thought that Durham did an amazing job. I mean, he's the John Durham that all of us have known for years. He was professional and detached and detailed. He was everything that the Democratic members were not. who attacked him viciously.

And what's fascinating is that they attacked him on things that were just Clearly untrue. For example, a number of them attacked him by saying, You went to Italy with Bill Barr and you were given evidence that Trump did collude with the Russians, and you never investigated it. And finally, they gave him a chance to answer, and he said, We did investigate it. There was nothing there. And then they just dropped that entirely.

But that's the level of criticism that was directed at John Durham. And that's what they went back at him and his integrity, and it was unbelievable. But they point out circumstantial things. Why did Don Jr. take a meeting with a Russian official?

Okay, dumb, but not criminal. You know, why was Donald Trump had a press conference and said, Hey, Russia, if you find the 30,000 emails? Eric Swalwell says, That's proof that he's colluding. No, that's Trump being Trump.

So they say. Yeah, the Trump Tower thing was really funny because you had shift who in the entire universe is the last person you want to be the Grand Inquisitor of John Durham. And you literally had Schiff, who's been accused of leaking and making inappropriate statements and false statements Actually, telling one of the most respected prosecutors in the Department of Justice how inappropriate he has been. But a lot of these members were hitting the Trump Tower, which was hilarious because the Clint campaign initially lied to the media and said that they did not fund the steel dossier. Then they admitted that it was, in fact, their doing, it was a campaign effort.

And where did they go? They went to the Russians, and they were accused by US intelligence. of being a conduit for Russian disinformation from the Russians.

So you have these Democrats saying, why didn't you charge them? They were talking to Russians to get dirt on a political opponent, and there's just no self awareness of that moment. I doubt it. I doubt that if any of this stuff comes to fruition, anyone could break it down. I would love to see piece by piece.

At least these guys say I was on that the assumptive path. I assumed I only was looking for things that would prove my theory.

So, if three things would pop up that would exonerate Trump and remove him, they would pick out the one that put him there. I'll focus on Don Jr. I'll focus on that press conference. I will focus on Alpha Bank because it's located in Trump Tower.

So they look at all these things, but along the way, Trump is trying to govern the country, and they couldn't even get a question besides what was happening in Russia. You have the Abraham Accords, you have meetings with Kim Jong-un, whatever was happening, it all come came back to the Russian investigation. And I would say this is not really a legal thing, but think about how that poisoned relations with Russia. Where they're saying, Yeah, we're bad, but we're not this bad. You're actually accusing of some stuff.

I took out Facebook ads. I have not spent colluded with a former businessman.

Well, I think that what people who were looking at the hearing objectively, which is probably very few. Would have been I think struck by the contrast. of the Democratic attacks and Durham's demeanor. But I wrote a column for Fox.com today that said that the real moment for me that will have the lasting sort of resonance for a lot of us was when Representative Cohen Told Durham that he, quote, had a good reputation and he would not get it back unless he changed his conclusions about Russian collusion and said, You're going to end up on the bottom of a pyre. Literally, his reputation is going to be torched.

Thanks, Jonathan. From his mouth to your ears, it's Brian Kilmead. Do you believe there's a difference between women and men? It's a yes-no question. Do you believe there's a difference?

Oh, I think that we're talking about this case within. No, I'm asking a question. Do you believe there's a difference between women and men? Most people could answer this very simply. I'm curious if you're willing to do so.

Oh, absolutely. I'm just putting it into the context of the conversation that we're having. I think that there are definitions related to sex.

So I'm trying to get a yes or no. I'm not trying to get a speech. Is there a difference between women and men? I think that there are definitions for biological sex. Unbelievable.

That's what Riley Gaines and others were down talking about Title IX 51 years later, talking about women competing against women in women's sports. The big fight for the longest time was women in college sports. Then the Title IX came out and said, For every man who's given an opportunity to play sports, you have to have a women's team.

So, wrestling, women's team. Of course, gymnastics, women's team. Of course, tennis. You better have a women's team.

Soccer, women's team.

So that's what Title IX was about. The controversy was: the smaller sports got too expensive because you have a 45-person or 80-person male roster on the football team. How can you match that with females who don't play football?

So that was the controversy. But now it is: can we have women compete against women? If someone's transgender, nothing against them. But is it fair to compete? And then Riley Gaines came out and basically said: the story is: I'm getting dressed next to somebody who is a biological male.

What is wrong with this picture? Here she is, cut twenty-one. Both Serena and Venus lost to the 203rd ranked male tennis player, which they're phenoms for women. My experience, my husband, he swam at University of Kentucky as well. In terms of accolades and in terms of national ranking, I was a much better swimmer than him.

He could kick my butt any day of the week without trying. And that's not to say that she's not prideful, but she's realistic. That's University of Pennsylvania.

So there was just some amazing exchanges about this. And I'll just let Riley Gaines answer the question: what is it like in the locker room? An elite athlete looks over and there's a male, cut 23. I walked out of the locker room and I asked one of the officials on the pool deck, I said, What are the guidelines that allowed this man into our locker room? And so nonchalantly he said back, Oh, but we actually got around this by making locker rooms unisex.

First and foremost, he just admitted this is a man by acknowledging how he had to change the rules to allow him into our locker rooms. And secondly, unisex.

So, any man could have walked into that locker room, any coach, any official, any parent, any pervert who wanted to walk into that locker room would have had full access to and bare minimum. We weren't even told. This was the arrangement, that is what they were doing. That is how they were trying to normalize the situation and make us feel guilty when we felt uncomfortable. And they were feeling threatened to speak up.

The players, the other swimmers, were saying, What's going on with this, Leah Thomas and others? And listen, you're gender confused, you have something going on. Nobody has anything against you or gay, nothing, nothing to do with that. It's fairness to women competing. And to Alex Morgan and Megan Rapino with the U.S.

national team who says no big deal. Really? When you go pay Brazil and you're in the final in the center half as a transition male. Good luck with that. And you lose 2-0.

Are they really the world champions?

Well that'll be the story. I'm not saying Brazil could be uh England. That'll be the story. Track and field got ahead of it with the Olympics. I think it's time to take it out of the athlete's hands.

I want you to hear just a remarkable exchange.

Someone who feels directly the opposite of Riley Gaines and me. Her name is Kelly Robinson.

So she's the president of a human rights campaign. She thinks this is a human rights issue. Cut twenty. Do males have an advantage over females biologically in sports? I'm not a physician, and I can't speak to that.

What's your real world experience? I mean, there are some people who are born male that I'm faster than if I were to sprint against them, and some that I'm not. has a physical advantage in sports over a biological female? Not as if a definitive statement. How many female members of the NBA do you see?

There's been this news article about men that think that they could beat Serena Williams in tennis, right? That they think that they could actually score a point on her. And it's just not the case. With the average amateur, sure, but with pros, you just heard. Serena Williams loses the best female tennis player ever.

loses to the two hundredth ranked male.

So, why would you put a male with women? Why can't we get a Wimbledon champion? Women compete against women, men against men. I mean, I feel like I'm being dumbed down having this argument. And then to hear Senator Kennedy say the same thing, he can't believe at the level he's having this argument either, because that's what she does.

Cut 22. But is that more than five genders? I'm just trying to understand. Are there more than five genders?

Well, I mean, I think that there was a time where women wearing pants didn't feel like it was appropriate for their gender, and yet I'm wearing pants today. I think that there are ways that we express ourselves. Are there more than five? I wouldn't subject myself to naming how many genders there are, but what I can say is that gender is inflection. Excuse me?

There's an infinite number of genders. I think depending on your culture, there are a lot of different genders that exist. And I can also say that it's a term that's evolving. If you look at young people today, they really don't lean into the binary of only woman and man. Really?

1-866-408-7669. Please tell me that. I did not know. I mean, I heard about Gen Z and different generations, like different things. I've not heard leaning into male or female.

Please tell me that that's the exception. Do not tell me that most 13, 14 years old are walking around going, yeah, I think mail and Female is a little confining. All of them? Incredible. Hey, don't forget One Nation, two days away, eight o'clock on Saturday, Fox News Channel.

From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest growing radio talk show. Brian In Kill Mead. Hi, everyone. Welcome to the latest moments of the Brian Killmeat Show as we await Prime Minister Modi of India, expected to discuss with President Biden things that really impact, especially, impact the world, especially. A rivalry with China that we both agree on, but they are supporting Russia in this Ukraine war.

They say they're neutral, but they're buying a ton of Russia oil, reopening shops that the West have left, violating those sanctions. And I hope the president puts his foot down when it comes to that, but he hasn't yet. The world's largest democracy. And by the way, AOC says she will not go to the state dinner because they don't like the human rights record of India. Compared to the rest of the world, they're okay.

Mark Thiessen standing by. Mark, welcome back. Didn't be wearing it.

So, if I'm President Biden, I shake hands, I grin, I say, before we go anywhere. you are single handedly sustaining the oil market for the Russians. You have bought more oil from them than any other Western any other democracy. I understand you don't want to leave the alliance, but you have to understand who invaded who. Is there pressure and leverage to be put on Modi in India?

I think there is. First of all, I think it's good that he's inviting him. India is somebody we need to. use uh uh sugar nut hammers uh to bring them along and uh and they're they're very, very important to off balance, uh to offset China. Uh they will they will probably as China begins to decline in population, uh you know that China has a big demographic problem, which is uh they are about to get to the point where they are uh where uh adult diapers are outselling baby diapers.

And so, you know, India will surpass them as the most populous country in the world within the foreseeable future.

So we really need to bring anchor India in the West. And so, yes, we have to. We have to pressure them on Russia, but it's a larger play. Also, tech-wise, if Apple's going to move out of China, that's where they're going to go, right? Yeah.

And if we want to decouple from China, a lot of those countries are going to go to India because they're going to be looking for what's so attractive about China, low-cost labor, right?

Well, you can get low-cost labor in India without all of the intellectual property theft and instability that it offers.

So, yeah, it's an important country. Biden's doing the right thing by bringing him to the White House and setting him in the way he is.

So, a couple of things. Mayor Suarez was just here at an earlier hour. He's going on the view today. And then Will Hurd is announcing he's going to be running for president. CIA background, his district was a Was a border district in Texas.

And he is a conservative Republican who says that if Trump is nominated, Joe Biden will win the election. Your thoughts about Will Hurd being numbered, I think, 13 in this race. Yes. So I think he's right about Trump, which is as much as I love Trump's record. I mean, his interview with Brett the other day where Brett asked him, so what are you going to do to win back those suburban women who abandoned you in twenty twenty?

And his answer was, I didn't lose in twenty twenty, I won. I mean, if that's where his mind is, he's not doing what's necessary to win back those swing voters. And this election is going to be decided by a few hundred thousand swing voters in five states. And at this point, Donald Trump is doing nothing to win those voters back and everything to alienate them.

So, yes, he's right about that. Will Hurt is not going to win the Republican nomination either, as far as I guess they're getting into it to make a name for themselves, to put a marker out there. I'm not quite sure why they're running other than that. We need to narrow the field, not expand it at this point. But, you know, right now it's early.

Let them get in, let them test the waters, and who knows, maybe somebody will catch a wave and take off. But we're going to need to, there really needs to be two primaries, Brian. There's the GOP primary to win the nomination to take on Biden, but there's also a GAOP primary to take on Trump. And so at some point, it's got to narrow down to a single candidate who's going to do that. And it's going to take a lot of pressure to get on these candidates who don't take off to tell them we can't follow the Ted Cruz strategy of just I'll be the last man standing at the end of the primary process.

It's got to be a one-on-one contest early on.

So, and one of the big issues globally are, and no one really has an international record except maybe Nikki Haley.

So, Ron DeSantos is asked to weigh in on the number one challenge we have, and that's China, Cut 30. Would you be willing to use tariffs to get China to the negotiating table? Yeah, I would. I think that what you need to do, if you're going to target a particular industry in China like that, you need to make sure we have incentives here in the United States to bring that industry home. It will raise the price of the China product, but we've got to make sure it's economical here in the United States.

So you need to have couple that with tax incentives, tax credits, and even for things that are really important like semiconductors. I would be willing to support government support on that. I typically wouldn't do that because generally the market does, but I think some of these things are so important for national security, we got to be willing to lean in on that.

So are you convinced that that's a solid strategy? He's 100% correct. I mean, look, as a matter of economics, you know, having industrial policy is not a free market conservative way to go. It's a national security issue. Having our dependence on China, especially, look, I don't care where they make my sneakers.

I don't care where they make my T-shirts. I do care where they make my semiconductors. I do care where they make my antibiotics and my pharmaceuticals and where all the key components of that are. We need to bring back strategic products that we're depending on. And quite frankly, also either bring them home to the United States or move them to friendly allies who can produce them at lower cost.

But yes, he's absolutely right. From a national security perspective, sometimes you have to violate your free market principles to protect the country. And that's a perfect example of how you do it.

So we're starting to see some. Mm-hmm.

Some breaks amongst the Republicans when it comes to supporting Ukraine. It's getting expensive and the surge is not, it's going to be a lot harder than everyone thought. As of right now, Vivek Karamaswamy had this about it, said this about our policy, what it should be, Cut 38. And I do think that Zelensky has become this sort of Pied Piper of Hamlin, convincing the United States, or at least the leaders of the U.S., to actually siphon over money over there that could be better utilized here at home. As President Laura, I said I would end this war, negotiate a peace treaty, pull Russia out of China's hands.

That's the real thing we need to do, is to dismantle the Russia-China alliance that nobody's talking about. That's how we advance American interests abroad, not by dumping more money into Zelensky's hands. I know you don't agree with that. Yeah, I I like VISIX, but that's nonsensical. I mean, so first of all, the money people need to understand.

I just wrote a big 4,000 word essay in the Washington Post, two full pages in the Washington Post, laying out the America first case for helping Ukraine, which is Put aside any concern about democracy, put aside solidarity with the Ukrainian people. Why is this in America's interest?

So the aid that we are giving Ukraine, the military aid, isn't going to Ukraine. It's going to Americans, right? It's going we are sending them weapons from our stockpiles, and we are then sending that money to U. S. defense contractors to replenish our stockpiles.

So, when Congress passes aid to Ukraine, it's creating jobs for Americans in the defense sector. I was just talking to a congressman from Texas whose base produces F-35 fighters, his district, in his district. And one of the things that's happening is our European allies are giving their old Soviet MiGs, and if Biden allows them F-16 fighters, what are they going to do to replenish their stockpiles? They're going to go and buy, they're going to want to upgrade. They're going to go to buy US F-35s.

So they're gonna buy d they're gonna buy weapons from his district. You know, that's going to create jobs in his district. This stuff is creating jobs and opportunity for the Americans and also it's re-energizing our defense industrial base so that we're ready to uh to replenish it when to prepare for ta uh for t for a potential conflict to deter potential conflict with Taiwan over Taiwan. Durham report yesterday, among the many things going on yesterday in particular, the ramifications still being felt. I know people like Matt Gates and company were saying, How could you not speak to Dolan?

How could you not subpoena Comey? How could you not subpoena Hillary, who refused to talk to you? But I like the Durham report. They felt as though they had enough just to prove with their predicate to launch this investigation that sidetracked this country for three years. Here is Dorham cut nine.

On July 31st, in my view, based on our investigation, there was not a legitimate basis to open as a full investigation. An assessment is something that had to be looked at to gather information, such as interviewing the people who provided. The Papadopoulos information, checking their own databases, the databases of other intelligence agencies, and the standard kinds of things that you would do in an investigation like this.

So your thoughts, because that got the backlash from Democrats. Of course, Don Jr. is having a meeting. Donald Trump called a press conference and says, hey, Rush, if you see these thirty thousand emails of Hillary's, I'd like to see them. They think that would have been enough.

to launch an investigation, and that's where the rubber hits the road between the parties. But do you think Democrats really believe that it was worth our time and our money to pursue this when there was no collusion?

Well, they've now been repudiated by two special counsels.

So Robert Mueller, you know, let's not forget that the Mueller probe found that Trump, that there was no Trump Russia conspiracy to steal the election. And now Durham has gone into the origins of that and shown, demonstrated in great detail that there was no that they should have never opened the full investigation in the first place.

So this is the a two special council maybe one special counsel could get it right wrong, two special counsels can't get it wrong. And the reality is what our friend Adan McCarthy likes to say that not all misconduct is criminal. that people can do things that are wrong that don't necessarily require merit prosecution in a court of law. And you can find that there was misconduct on the FBI, that there was gross misbehavior by FBI agents, that they handled this poorly, but that doesn't mean that they committed a crime for which they should be prosecuted. And sometimes you have to fix the system and it doesn't mean that people have to go to jail over it.

But it was a disgrace. And the the whole Russia probe was a disgrace. And people want to understand why if you know people you got Democrats wondering why are Republicans rallying around Trump in the face of these indictments? It's because of the Mueller probe. It's because they were told for two years, including by Adam Schiff, that there was this secret evidence that we couldn't see that Donald Trump had colluded with Russia and stolen the election.

And people took that seriously. And then they found out that it was the boy who cried Wolf. And so now when people tell them, well, this time he really did something, this time it's really serious, a lot of them just don't buy it anymore. And that's why, if you want to know why Republicans rally around Trump right now, it's because of this. No doubt.

The other thing would be the Hunter Biden investigation and the sweetheart deal he seems to have gotten. And they can't answer the question: was the laptop used in the investigation? And what about the international business deals, which would have been a FARA violation because he was not registered as a foreign agent to do any of this trade that they went after Steve Wynne for and they famously went after Paul Manafort for and put him in jail for? No one can answer the question how sweeping this five-year investigation was that got him just a fine and probation. Here's James Comer cut three.

They knew they had the media that would get their backs, and they never thought that there would be a scenario where there would be a Republican committee like the House Oversight Committee, which Jim Jordan's on, that would be uncovering all of the fraud that I believe the FBI, many in the IRS, and many in the DOJ knew the Bidens were doing all along.

So They're going to push forward on this. What level of interest do you have in the Comer investigation? I mean, I want to know the truth. I always have an interest in Congress doing its oversight and figuring this stuff out because no one trusts the FBI and no one trusts the Justice Department because they've been lied to so many times.

So, of course, I support it. But here, again, here is also, by the way, another reason for the folly. I had a column with my colleague Daniel Pletka from AEI saying that Biden should go ahead and pardon Trump, is because when you go after a former president like this, Whether or not the indictment is justified, it's just going to create a cycle where then the next Republican president is going to have to go after the Bidens, right? And we're going to do an investigation of that, and there's going to be pressure to prosecute them. And there's just this vicious cycle because people are not just going to be satisfied with, okay, we survived it and we won the election, and they're going to want to fight fire with fire.

And so our whole democracy, it's a bigger threat to our democracy than anything that either Joe Biden or Donald Trump allegedly did. Yeah, we'll see. What about the censure on Adam Schiff? Does that elevate him like he's proclaiming?

Well, in California, it might, because California is like, you know, all the Republicans are leaving.

So it's becoming a bluer and bluer state because all the Republicans, you know, they've had so many people leave, they ran out of U-Haul in the state of California. It's becoming a more and more blue state.

So maybe it does, but you know what? That's not the reason to do it or not do it. The reason to do it is because what he did was shameful. I mean, there are a lot of people who lied to us about the Russia collusion hoax. But the people who I hold in the highest contempt are the people who had access to classified intelligence that the rest of us couldn't see and told us, trust me, I've seen the evidence.

I know things you don't know and I can't share with you, but believe me, there was collusion. and push that lie. And push that and use abuse their position on the intelligence committee to to suggest to the rest of us that there was that there was collusion when it turned out it wasn't. That was an absolute abuse of his access to classified material, and he should never have access again. And, Mark, now there's a big race.

If Feinstein bails out, and we know that she can't do it, she's shot, Alzheimer's, whatever it is, people who know her say she was a great person, but she's not there right now, should not be serving. And if she does step aside, Governor Newsom says I'm going to pick a minority, female, and then Schiff would have to run against that minority. He probably wouldn't. He wants to be the next senator from California.

So he's praying that Feinstein lasts. You know, she is she is not the most mentally compromised person to ever serve in the United States Senate. I was there for almost a decade. And I saw Strom Thurmond and other people serving in that body. I think Strom retired like a couple of weeks short of his 100th birthday.

Uh so uh And he wasn't doing at that point he was totally non-functional?

Well, he was a little bit more functional, but he was at 96, he became chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

So, you know, I could tell you stories, Brian, of my days in the Senate. Senators with drool cups, senators who didn't know who the majority leader was on the Senate floor when he was talking to them. I mean, there's a long history of Of cognitively impaired senators. But you're not. He's Washington Post columnist, Fox News contributor, and not impaired.

Good to you, buddy. Mark Deason, thank you. Very nice. It came from the heart. Back at a moment with your calls.

Brian Kilmicho. Both sides, all opinions. It's Brian Killmead. A talk show that's real. This is the Brian Kill Me Show.

Hey, welcome back, everybody.

So many of you are writing. I got some of your emails. Let me go through some of them. David writes this, earlier I brought up Serena Williams. And I said, Serena Williams is the greatest women tennis player ever, and she losed the number two, 200th-ranked man in the world.

In fact, has. And then David writes me and says, Brian, you referenced Serena being the best. Just wanted to remind you that she fell one short of tying Margaret Court of Australia for the most single major victories. I'm pretty sure, Dave, as much as I've seen footage of Margaret Court. I would say that Serena Liam is the most powerful, most dynamic, the most consistent.

I mean, she's playing about 10 years further, longer than everybody else, and I think the competition is greater. Stanley writes this about China. How hard is it to figure out? China has and still is paying Joe Biden to sell out the United States, period. Why wouldn't anyone have the guts just to say it?

Well, you did, Stanley. I don't have proof of it, but man, they're getting closer and closer to an investigation. Keep in mind, too. Joe Biden does show times of toughness. Do you know the Thad missile system that China warned South Korea not to take is going into South Korea right now?

And guess who sold it to him? We did.

So it's not all weakness. I mean we show signs of strength. We have all these meetings getting together of the surrounding countries that look at China as a threat. They hate when you see Australia, India, the US, Japan, South Korea get together. They see that it's coalescing to fight them.

A little paranoid, don't you think? Brian, kill me, Chill. A radio show like no other. It's Brian Killmead. Let's talk about the economy.

Would your policies roughly be similar to your first term as far as taxes, regulation? Uh yeah, and I do even more taxes. Don't forget, we took in more money after I give tax cuts than we did before I did 'em. I actually think the regulation cuts were more important. You know, we have the greatest economy in the history of our country.

I think the regulation cuts were actually more important than the tax cuts. But I did the biggest tax cuts in the history of our country, bigger than the Reagan tax cuts, and the biggest regulation cuts. And he thought the regulation cuts were more effective than the tax cuts. That is, President Donald Trump is looking to get four more years to put his economic principles in place. Rayner Zeidelman is a historian and sociologist, author of a brand new book, It's So Important, in Defense of Capitalism.

In a time in which capitalism has got a negative connotation, we wouldn't be the country we are, the behemoth, the superpower economically or militarily, if we didn't embrace capitalism along with the birth of the country, which happened around the same time with Adam Smith coming into his own at the same time America became to be. Rayner, welcome back. Hello. First off, what prompted you to write something in defense of capitalism? Have you noticed it getting tarnished around the world?

Everywhere around the world. You know, this year and last year, I traveled to 30 countries and everywhere. Let's start in Latin America. It's almost all socialist now. E in not only in Venezuela, even in Chile, they voted for socialists in Brazil and in Peru and Colombia.

It's all socialist now, almost all socialist in Latin America. And then if you look in Europe, we go more and more in the direction of a plant economy. For example, what the EU did right now, they forbid combustion engines and a lot of other things that go more and more in the direction of a plant economy. And in the United States, United States has the worst ranking ever in the Index of Economic Freedom since they started the Index in nineteen ninety five.

So and in Asia also, we had in China four decades with economic reforms, with economic growth because dengsiaoping started with private property market reforms and now this Xi Jinping goes back in the direction to more state and less market.

So everywhere in the world, capitalism is under attack. And it shouldn't be because it's lifted more people out of poverty and give more people. A chance in life than anything else. And the thing that wipes out societies is when they lose their incentive. There's incentive, the entrepreneurism that fuels the country.

And many people think Rainer, that it just benefits the person whose business effort it leads. It isn't. It's everything else that comes along with it when you go ahead and invest or start a business. That's part of capitalism. Yes, that is absolutely wrong.

When some people think that capitalism is only for rich. No, it's not primarily the strong who need capitalism. The strong and rich will get along in any system. Capitalism is so important for the weak and the poor because the only chance to improve their living conditions is in a free market economy. Let's give you some facts.

200 years ago, before capitalism, 90% of the global population was living in absolute poverty. Today the figure is less than 9%. And what is even more important, in the recent decades since the end of communism in China and other countries, Poverty has decreased so much as never before in human history. In nineteen eighty one, the extreme poverty rate was forty-three percent. two thousand, it has fallen to twenty eight percent.

Today, it's below nine percent.

So you see, capitalism is not only important for rich people, no, it's especially important for the poor people. And this was what Adam Smith wrote in his great in his great book about the wealth of nations. And the thing is, the perception is it's much higher. You're saying this is the best time in the history of this planet to be born if you want to live above the poverty level or have a chance of success. And you point down the 1980s when Mao dies, they start introducing a degree of market economy into the economy of China.

And they go from basically, they totally revamp their entire their entire population. They pull the entire population out of poverty, right? Yes, China is a perfect example. nineteen fifty eight to nineteen sixty two, there was the biggest socialist experiment in history in China, the so called great leap forward. Forty five million people died in China.

And I ask people everywhere in the world where I have my lectures in Asia, Latin America, United States and Europe, I ask, have you heard at school about this so called great leap forward where forty five million people died? Almost no one had heard about it at school. This is so bad. And then even nineteen eighty one, Eighty eight percent of people in China lived in extreme poverty. Eighty eight percent.

Then they started to introduce private property. They started with capitalist reforms, deng Xiaoping. The result today, less than one percent of people in China live in extreme poverty. Of course, China is not a pure capitalist country, of course not. And in the last years, they go back to more state and less market.

But this What happened there, and this is not the only example, I was in Vietnam half a year ago, and Vietnam was. In 1990, the poorest country in the world, poorer than even African countries. And Then they started in nineteen eighty six with their so-called stole mole reforms. And the number of people living in poverty in Vietnam decreased from 80 to 5%.

So you can see it everywhere in the world when they started with capitalist reforms, living conditions improved. And on the other hand, there's not one single example where socialism improved living conditions for ordinary people. In the last century, there were twenty four socialist experiments all over the world, and they failed without any exception.

So, we're talking with Rainer Zeitelman. He's a historian and sociologist, an author of Indefensing Capitalism. He gives you a great history.

So, famously, many of our founding fathers were taught by the Scottish who had these great free market principles. And guess what Adam Smith was? Scottish. He writes The Wealth of Nations, and capitalism is inborn. And all of a sudden, these societies are revamped.

People have a set, the Industrial Revolution takes root. And Adam Smith people think, well, he was just a guy who wanted to be rich. He actually had a negative feeling towards the rich. He wanted to lift all boats, right? And when he died, he left his money not to his relatives, but to the general population, to the poor.

That is never the focus on capitalism, it's just for the rich. It's to give everybody a chance at being successful, however you want that to be, however, that looks for you. Yes, that's absolutely correct, World of Advent. You know, Smith drew income from different sources that added up to nine hundred pounds a year, which was three to four times the salary of university professors, a lot of money. But when Adam Smith's last will and testament was read, his nephew, David Douglas, was very disappointed.

He received far less than he had hoped for. Why? The will confirmed what Smith's friends had long suspected. Smith gave away almost his entire fortune to the poor, mostly in secret.

So, if you want to rich people, if you want to get people out of poverty, put capitalism in. Are you concerned that with the socialist spending in our economy right now, the non-discretionary spending, that we're heading towards socialism? There's got to be a degree in society, in modern society, of a social safety net. I get it.

Social Security to a degree, unemployment, I get it. But have we gone the other way? Yes. And today, there's even a danger that with a pretext of fight against climate change, that they will turn our economy to a planned economy. They don't call it a planned economy, but it is a planned economy.

Let me explain what is the difference between a free market economy and a planned economy. In a free market economy, entrepreneurs decide what to produce, and in the end, it's consumers' choice. In a planned economy, government the government decides or government officials decide, politicians, what to produce. And I give you a perfect example. You hear my accent.

I'm from Germany. The German energy policy was called some years ago from by Wall Street Journal the dumbest energy policy in the world. And this is true. First we phased out nuclear power plants, then we started to phase out coal power plants, then we forbid fracking in Germany.

Now we import L and G fracking gas from the United States. We import dirty electricity from East European countries, and we have almost the highest energy prices in the world.

Now companies, for example, BSF, what is the biggest chemical company in the world, now they go they go to China because of this crazy policy. And There were so much much stupid ideas from politicians. I I tell you the the the the last thing that happened here in Europe Irish farmers are worried now because the Department of Agriculture is proposing to kill up to two hundred thousand cows only because they are bad for the climate. Which is crazy. It's nuts.

And didn't they try that in the Netherlands? And wasn't there a massive revolt? Yes, it's it's and it's only an example, you know, that. what socialists or what anti capitalists believe. They believe that government and politicians are smarter than all the entrepreneurs and all the consumers.

And what I believe That all the entrepreneurs and the millions of consumers are smarter than politicians and government officials. And this is the reason why I wrote the book. And please let me know something. I had another interview a few days ago, and someone asked me, Do you think you can convince anti-capitalists with your book? And my answer was, no, I don't think so, because they will not buy the book.

They will not read the book. I wrote the book for people like you and hopefully a lot of people in the audience to provide you with all the best. Pets. And figures. To defend capitalism.

Here I have 10 chapters in the book and to debunk all these stereotypes, all these myth about capitalism. For example, chapter one, capitalism is responsible for hunger and poverty, or capitalism leads to growing inequality, leads to climate change, environmental structures, leads to financial crisis, or leads to monopolies. This is also an important point, monopolies. Of course, capitalism can lead to monopolies sometimes, but what's more important? Capitalism destroys monopolies time and again.

I have here a lot of examples in my book. I will only give you two examples here. In 2007, there was a headline with a UK newspaper, Will MySpace ever lose its monopoly? question mark. And the same year, Forbes magazine had the the cover story, Notia, who will ever catch the cell phone king?

This is not long ago. How were these monopolies destroyed? by capitalism, by competition, by innovation. Or take let's say speak about Xerox. I think even today, some people use the word Xeroxing in the United States to make a photocopy.

Why? because Xerox had a market share in the seventies of ninety five percent. And now it's less than two percent. Why? Not because of the government, because of the state, no, because of competition, because of innovation or Kodak.

Do you remember Kodak? They had ninety five percent market share in the US camera market, and I think eighty percent of the film market was destroyed by competition, not by the government.

So I trust more in capitalism and free market competition. And just to challenge yourself, challenge yourself to get the most out of life, whatever that looks like. Give yourself an opportunity to be successful. Set up a society that pushes people with ideas forward and makes it easier for them to see it through. Not make the regulation so prohibitive, it's not worth the trouble.

Rainer Zottelman, it's such an important message. And the exit question for you is this. Is any who is right now outside Vietnam, which you use up in this example, which is unbelievable to the American audience to hear that they have these free market principles? Who seems to get what you're saying? What nation seems to get what you're saying to go back to this capitalism that we're getting away from?

Who seems to have seen the light? I think In a lot of countries, there are a lot of people. And you know, I I commissioned a poll for this book to find out how people think about capitalism. And now I have a good news, I had so much bad bad news. We did the research in thirty four different countries and United States is even number two from the countries where people believe in capitalism.

I think the majority of Americans and this is one of the results of our polls done by Itzos Mori, which is one of the most prestigious polling institutes in the world. United States is even number two when it comes to the attitude of the population. By the way, number one was Poland. And Poland is another example. P Poland was One of the poorest countries in Europe in socialist time, very poor, poorer than Ukraine, for example.

And then they started in the 1990s with these capitalist reforms. And it's amazing what happened there. Exactly. You know what it is? It's empowering people to reach their potential.

As a government, yeah, but just let people, if you want to feel like you have a purpose in life, go find your goal, pursue your dream, and along the way you inspire others who are going to be the workers in your company, eventually run their own. It just is, it hits on so many levels. I can't believe how we've gotten away from that until I read your book. In defense of capitalism. I didn't fully realize it, but you take on the arguments in this.

And I encourage everybody to get it. And the Wall Street Journal wrote it up. And they have your editorial out there, too. It came out June 16th. Thanks, Rayner.

I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, Raino calling him from Germany to help us out. What do you think about that?

1-866-408-7669. Brian Kilmicho. Coming to you on a need-to-know basis because Mandy, you need to know. It's Brian Kilmead. The more you listen, the more you'll know.

It's Brian Kilmead. Hey, we are back and I'm just checking my watch. I'm realizing I need to know more. More to know. Invest in premium American whiskey as it ages.

The older it gets, the better it gets, and the more valuable it gets. Go to caskdeeds.com. That's caskdeeds.com to learn more. Paid for by Spirits Capital Corporation. I feel like they just celebrated 40 years, but now it's 50 years of SNL, and they'll celebrate Radio City Music Hall, and it'll happen next year.

We'll see if the strike will be over. Lorne Michaels announced at Cannes Lion Festival that the celebration will get a head start as part of NBC's coverage of the Paris Olympics in July, which, by the way, is also covered in scandal. He said it'll be emotional, but everyone will show up because it's important. The planning for it, which has taken the last six months and is not happening for another year and a half, there are a lot of events happening, so good job. I like the good old days.

I don't like the present days. I think they got to get a brand new cast.

Next. AOC and other squad members will boycott India's Prime Minister Modi's joint address to Congress today. Evidently, Modi doesn't take any questions in India. He's going to take one today. And we know President Biden doesn't like to take any questions here, so they have something else in common.

I was not invited, and I wouldn't go. If AOC's not going to be there, why would I go? Good question.

Next, President Biden's $400 billion student loan handout is safe for now. On Wednesday, the House tried to override the veto but failed.

Next. A 13-year-old lacking basic skills in reading, math, and standardized test scores reach a low, the lowest, I think, since. 1980.

So get this: at a 500, a perfect score, the average reading score is 256. That's down four points from three years ago. In math, 271, they are down even more. They are down nine points the last time math performance was taken.

So this is bad for 13-year-olds when you can't read and you can't add. Not a good combination. To me, everybody should get a voucher for extra help. A learning center is probably in your neighborhood. Maybe you can't afford it.

That's what you could use government money for to go down there and fill that gap. As a country, we can't just let people struggle. That's my view. From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kilmead.

Hi, everyone. Brian Kilman here. Thanks so much for listening. Big Hour. Jackie Heinrich brings us up today what's happening in Washington because you got Prime Minister Modi of India, a very valuable ally, especially their location and their growing democracy, their ability to handle tech manufacturing, and maybe bring Apple and others there.

Also, a hedge against China. They are having a State dinner tonight. They're already having bilateral meetings right now in the Oval Office, in the White House somewhere.

So we'll keep an eye on that. We're also trying for hope against hope to see if we can find that Titanic submersible before it's too late. They're supposed to only have, you know, when we started looking for this, had 96 hours of oxygen left.

Now it's virtually down to zero.

So we're keeping our eyes open for that. We're going to talk to Elbridge Colby in a matter of moments, but let's get to the big three.

Now, with the stories you need to know, it's Brian's big three. Number three: there's an infinite number of genders. I think, depending on your culture, there are a lot of different genders that exist. And I can also say that it's a term that's evolving. If you look at young people today, they really don't lean into the binary of only woman and man.

Yeah, it's so passe, women and men. Whoever thought we'd be debating genders? The LGBTQ hearings on the Hill yesterday were quite something. I bring in the highs, the lows, and the stuff I still can't wrap my head around. Number two.

I uh made very clear that we would have deep concerns about uh PRC intelligence or military uh activities. In Cuba. This is something we're going to be monitoring very, very closely. Oh, monitoring closely. Good.

Every 2024 candidate needs a China policy, as they are an all-time most vulnerable foe ever. And the administration still thinks they're a friend. As it becomes clear, they are moving into our backyard in Cuba in every aspect of our lives. TikTok, plus, a new candidate just entered the GOP primary. He's got a great resume to deal with China head-on.

Number It's double standard. Anyone else in America whose last name isn't Biden or Clinton would have gone to jail, and they would have gone to jail three or four years ago for what Hunter Biden did. You can't argue. James Comer weighing in more Hunter plea deal fallout and more questions about the overseas deals and the investigation. Did that even play a role in the five-year look at Hunter's background and what relationship it has financially with his father?

Plus, John Durham speaks after a three-year investigation and brings his report to life. I'll bring you those highlights. Elbridge Campbell joins us. Elbridge Colby joins us right now, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Force Development from 2017 to 2018. Elbridge, welcome back.

Great to be with you, Brian. Elbridge, I'm just stunned by the fact that we see the Secretary of State is taking it in stride. A military relationship and exercises, Cuba and China, that's okay? Yeah, I mean, Brian, honestly, I'm confused because I don't think China has given any material indication that it is actually interested in the Thaw. The Thaw rhetoric is essentially all from the Biden administration.

Now, the president might have deep six what was going to happen anyway, but might have deep sixed it with his offhand comment calling Xi Jinping a dictator the other night. But I mean, I, you know, I was in Shangri-La, in Singapore at the Shangri-La dialogue earlier this month, and the Chinese defense minister was very confident and assertive in saying on the Taiwan issue, on a range of issues. They're not changing their tune at all.

So, this is all like, it seems to me, it's largely a projection from the administration. No kidding. And by the way, he rejected our Secretary of Defense said, Hey, you want a meet, do a do a policy? And the Chinese Defense Secretary or Defense Minister said, No, not interested. That was so revealing, but also while that dialogue was happening, something really interesting happened.

There was an unsafe chance that if you've seen Topicon, hopefully everybody has, right? The original, the jet wash, that happened over the South China Sea to a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft a little bit before the conference. During the conference, a U.S. ship and a Canadian ship transited the Taiwan Straits as a kind of freedom of navigation thing.

The Chinese did like an unsafe cutoff right in front of one of those ships. Not the Canadian ship, though, the American ship. What does that say to everybody? It says they're not scared of anybody, including the Americans. They don't even have enough regard for the Canadians to bother with them.

That's the attitude we're getting. And Xi Jinping had just had a very senior meeting where he said the Chinese people and the leadership need to be prepared for extreme scenarios.

So it is a dangerous time. I agree with that, the administration, about that. But the right way to handle it is not to send like Tony Blinken or Janet Yellen to China or John Kerry. That is not sending the right signal. Elberg, we are doing exactly that.

Blinken first, Yellen next, and then the ridiculous John Kerry talk about climate. Here is Secretary of Defense Blink, Secretary of State Blinken, talking about what they might be doing in Cuba. Listen to what he said, CUD 26. I made very clear that we would have deep concerns about PRC intelligence or military. Uh activities.

Thank you, Law. This is something we're going to be monitoring. very, very closely, and we've been very clear about that. And we will protect our homeland. We will protect our interests.

I mean, come on. Are you kidding me?

Well, I mean, I think you can listen to the tone of voice to see how seriously they take it. I mean, I'm sorry, but like, that's just not, and that's priced in for the Chinese. That's not even a big deal. A lot of what they're doing, like these unsafe encounters, is they're showing they're willing to take risks and getting the Americans to back down. And Tony Blinken will say, Well, I've shared my concerns.

Okay, and the concerns have been shared, and the Chinese will keep doing what they intend to do. We have to be prepared to take and assume risk to show these people who are incredibly serious, serious as a heart attack. You're exactly right, Brian, what you just said. Number one challenge. I mean, objectively, number one challenge in our history, far larger than USSR, Nazi Germany, et cetera.

That kind of statement from Tony Blink is not the kind of thing that we need.

So yesterday, the president at a fundraiser makes this comment. He says, the reason why President Xi got very upset in terms of what I shot the balloon down were the two boxcars full of spy equipment. And he didn't know it was there. There's a great embarrassment for dictators when they don't know what happened that wasn't supposed to be going on when it was blown off course. And the Chinese foreign minister, a spokesperson, said the remarks seriously contradict basic facts, seriously violate diplomatic etiquette, and seriously infringe on China's political dignity.

So your thought, you bring me inside diplomatic speak. How do you interpret that?

Well, I don't think you need to be an inside diplomatic speak to see what the Chinese were saying is they were lambasing us, and they did that to Blinken, or the readout of the meeting of Blinken when he was in Beijing. I mean, I think this comment, these comments by the president were very disturbing and irresponsible on multiple levels. One is, I find it offensive, Brian, honestly, that he refers to the spy balloon incident as silly, which he said several times. And I think it's reasonable to infer is part of the deal with the Chinese. I mean, this is a massive spy balloon that hovered above.

Our most sensitive military sites. That is not a joke. You can bet the Chinese would shoot an American thing like that down as soon as it got anywhere near what they think is their territorial airspace, which is quite large. The other thing is, he said, Brian, I think this, I have a little bit of a different view than some others in our world, is I think it was irresponsible to call Xi Jinping a dictator. That's obviously true.

But he's the president of the United States. He's talking to a bunch of fundraisers offhandedly. Who knows what was going on? It's essentially a political context. We are in a really dangerous situation.

And, you know, loose lips, think ships kind of thing, or, you know, sort of unnecessary provocations are ill-advised. We need to hit the gym. You know, the way I think, I mean, we talked about this last time, but we need to not be the Apollo Creed approach in Rocky IV. We really need to be focusing on hitting the gym and not getting in the mic. And that's the ultimate definition, even as we're shooting.

Shrinking our stick, he's talking smack, in a sense, if you use kind of colloquial language, towards the Chinese. That's very ill-advised. We want to present them with like Teddy Roosevelt, speak softly, carry a big stick. Yeah, I mean, let them see what we're doing. We are doing some things.

Like, for example, I'm loving the THAD missile system going into South Korea. I love the meetings that we're having and the coalition that's forming with Australia, South Korea, Vietnam to a degree, as an ally, Japan in the area, and expanding our bases in the Philippines and Guam. I love that. But let's have a consistent muscle flexing moment. That's why the American people give them eight hundred ninety billion dollars to build up the military, build it up, show it off, so we don't have a war.

Exactly. No, I 100% agree with you. The one thing I would say, and I do think the administration deserves credit, including today with Prime Minister Modi, a lot of things they're doing. It deserves applause. I was in the Philippines.

There's a lot of things going on there. Japan, there's a lot of progress. The problem is we can't measure ourselves against ourselves. We need to measure against what the Chinese are doing, and we're not going far enough, fast enough, at enough scale. And so I'm afraid that we are kind of patting ourselves on the back for progress, but progress that's insufficient to meet the need.

I mean, it's you know, if you're a market actor, if you're a company, even if you're reforming, if you're not reforming at the speed of your customers' demands, you're going to go out of business. And that's the danger of where we are.

So, the other thing to keep in mind, too, is we just got TikTok just jump off the front pages, and it shouldn't. TikTok has infiltrated into the whole next generation. People are making money from it, entrepreneurs like they do on YouTube. It is the number one app for everybody, I think 16, if not younger, to 30 by far. And now, despite their proclamation, TikTok confirms some U.S.

user data is stored in China.

So, every time we pick it up and go on the app, and we think we're being entertained or informed, China is actually doing the best they can to get a hold of all our basic identity.

So, if we ever be decided, if that 12-year-old decides to get into the CIA, if they try to become students in China, they're going to have all their background. Are we okay with this? It's scary, Brian, because I think the future is the panopticon, the kind of all-seeing thing. And what you could kind of see a little bit actually with their very effective and somewhat quiet crackdown on the COVID protests a few months ago is they don't need to go out and like shoot a bunch of people on the street. They're prepared to do that, as we know from Tiananmen.

But they're going to have so much information. They're going to use big data. They're going to use this very impressive but also worrying AI technology to be able to know not only everything about their own people, but if they get that kind of data, they'll know it about us too. And then they're going to be able to do very targeted coercion. They're not going to have to send a cruise missile into your house.

they're going to be able to send a message that we know this thing about you that you don't want other people to know or blah, blah, blah, or you're not going to get a job because you bought the wrong kind of book on Amazon or whatever. That's the future we really have to worry about.

So let's talk about Ukraine if we can. We understand they did blow up a bridge. The Ukrainians did. There was a common thoroughfare for a resupply route for Russian troops. But so far, the countersurge has been a little bit harder than the Ukrainians thought.

The Russians seem very dug in. And of course, if Russia wins, China wins.

So they're looking at this, and the West is doing everything possible to make sure Ukraine has what they have to win. How would you characterize the summer of the counteroffensive?

Well, I want to be cautious because others know more, but also because it's ongoing. I would say actually the Ukrainians, at least some of the Ukrainian military leadership, seem to have more, I would say, measured expectations. I mean, I think what we're seeing is that this has become a war of attrition. I mean, I hope the Ukrainians have a lot more success. The reporting that you see in places like the Wall Street Journal and the Times and so forth suggests the Ukrainians have not made their main effort and have not yet penetrated the Russian first line.

But I mean, I think President Zelensky was saying that the Russians have mined like thousands and thousands of square miles of territory.

So I'm not sure. Sadly, I think that this is probably going to go on, Brian, and it's going to be consuming and difficult. And this is unfortunately the reality. I could be wrong. I mean, in the sense, I'm not saying this is like as a prediction.

I'm saying this is what it looks like. But it's possible the Ukrainians would break through. But frankly, even if they do achieve a breakthrough, you've seen, for instance, Russian advantages using helicopters, attack helicopters, which had been... they had not used very effectively earlier, but now the Russians appear to have adapted and they're using the advantages of defense where they pop their helicopters up where the Ukrainians can't shoot them with air defense. And of course, air defense is at a premium, not only because it's very scarce in general, but because they're using it to protect their cities.

So it's a r I actually have I have true well, I have deep sympathy for the Ukrainians in general, but I certainly have deep uh sympathy for them in the in in dealing with this. I mean, God forbid, you could on the flip side, you could have a like a battle of the psalm kind of situation where people go out and they you know, they try their best and they just get mowed down. And that would be obviously a human tragedy, but it could also expose them to a Russian counterattack.

So it's a very difficult situation. I think bringing a sort of a sobriety and realism to the challenge here and how long this is going to take, what it's going to require, it's going to be difficult because it's necessary. Because the other thing is, I mean, look, at the end of the day, this is going to need to have some kind of Agreement, even if it's an armistice or something like that, it may not be a full negotiated solution. But unfortunately, we're not seeing a lot of evidence that Putin actually wants. A negotiated solution, or that the Chinese want a negotiated solution.

So I think this is a this, unfortunately, this summer is probably going to be to some degree kind of coming to grips. With the difficulties, I mean, you could compare it a little bit to Korea, where you have, you know, Inshan and the counterattack and pushing the Yalu. It's not exactly the same. But then it ends up as a war along the 38th parallel. Not exactly.

But that's what I would expect. Again, we could be surprised, hopefully, on the upside. But that's sort of what it looks like.

So if we have to get them in the F-15s, wouldn't you think? I mean, personally, I think the F-16 seem to make sense. I mean, I think they're not going to be a panacea because Russian air defenses are very sophisticated. But I think if we are looking at a war of attrition, and these are, you know, I'm very consistent in saying we should be genuinely prioritizing China and making sure our military assets and resources go towards the China fight and we should be overdoing it. You know, if we think 100% is enough, we should do 200%.

But systems like the F-16 are very unlikely to be relevant in any context against the Chinese because they're not stealthy and so forth and they're relatively short range. That seems like something that the Ukrainians want. I'm glad it's finally happened. But it sounds like it's going to take some time. You hear different stories.

But I think the real point here, Brian, is there's not going to be any magic weapon. It's going to be a combination and sustained support. My own view is the Europeans need to take the lead in supporting the Ukrainians given the need for us to focus on Asia. But somebody's got to support them. Right.

They fight like warriors. They adapt our equipment like we didn't think possible. They have Patriots knocking hypersonic missiles out of the sky. And now they're on the offensive when they were supposed to be wiped out in 10 days.

So here we are 15 months in, and people wonder how much success they can have instead of any success. And they took it looks like eight villages and 44 miles so far. That's the number I read in the Times this morning. Right. Yes.

I mean, I think their performance has been extraordinary and it has continued to be. But I do think we are seeing a kind of reversion to the mean, if you will, where numbers, position, the advantages of the defense, learning happens. And even if the hopefully the Ukrainians can sustain an advantage, But they're not, I mean, this is what President Zelensky said. They're not magic workers. This is not a Hollywood movie.

They can't bend space and time.

So, I mean, again, the Russians have just plastered this whole area, it appears, with mines. They've got a huge number of mines. They've got artillery. They've got helicopters. They've got air defense.

That is it, you know, they're in trenches. I mean, that that is a really difficult problem. Yeah, hard to believe a superpower has resorted to that. Elbridge Colby, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

Thanks, Brian. You got it. 1866-408-7669. Your calls. Then we go to Washington.

Jackie Heinrich standing by. The latest on this India, extremely important India Biden summit. Don't move. If you're interested in it, Brian's talking about it. You're with Brian Kilmead.

All right, we have a lot of your emails coming in.

So we're talking about a bunch of things, and one of which is trans athletes. I have nothing against anybody. You could be gay, trans athletes. It doesn't matter, but just don't screw up women's sports. And don't make people uncomfortable in the women's locker room if you're still a male, right?

Crystal writes this. I have an idea of the trans sports issues. I have an idea to fix it all. Have women's sports, men's sports, and transgender sports. It seems a simple solution.

I just don't think there's enough. And this has been brought up before, but I appreciate you thinking about it. Let's start talking about when it comes to. Oh, let me see. I can't really read that out loud.

That's a little crazy. But how about Lynn writes this? When it comes to drilling down to the purest form, when it comes to Donald Trump, he said, if they were to gather all the facts data regarding the opposition to Donald Trump and distill it, you end up with the limited reasons to the opposition. Here are some facts: secure border, broad economic boom, terrorism isolated, eradicated, foreign policy strong, military strong increase, adversaries confronted militarily and diplomatically. That is the Donald Trump camp feeling, and all that stuff is true.

The question is, can you get all the other stuff without the dramatics? And do you get that, DeSantis? Do you get that with Tim Scott? Do you get that with Nikki Haley? Do you get that with Chris Christie?

That's the question to ask yourself. Radio that makes you think. This is the Brian Killmead Show. On this vote, the A's are 213 and the Nays are 209. With six answering present, the resolution adopted.

Without objection, the motion to consider is laid on the table. House will be in order. Will Representative Schiff present himself in the well? It's just such an embarrassment that Adam Schiff could lie like that, lead the American public down a dry hole, go on MSNBC, CNN, every network, and talk about how corrupt Donald Trump is and how he's colluding with Russia, and they're about to release all this intelligence. And then in come the Mueller report, in comes the Horowitz report, out comes the Durham report, and it all reveals that Adam Schiff made all this stuff up and the things out there were unrelated.

The collusion never took place in three and a half years of our lives, and millions of dollars are out the door. He was censured yesterday by the Speaker. Of course, they rallied to his side.

So just to. You know, it's a colossal waste of time, a lack of contrition on Schiff's part. And let's see if he's the next senator from California now. Jackie Heinrich saw all the antics. Fox News, White House correspondent, comes to us from Washington right now.

Jackie, welcome. Hey, Brian. Good to see you. Well, that was a bizarre scene on the floor yesterday, right? Yeah, you know No, it was, and it's interesting because this resolution was tabled last week when you had 20.

Republicans who said, and they weren't just moderates who you usually see, you know, sort of getting in the way of these things. Basically, saying that the resolution as it was written would have. Been unconstitutional because the imposition of a $16 million fine is the equivalent of. A violation of the 27th Amendment, and that that's not within their purview.

So, this resolution that they finally reached an agreement on and brought those 20Rs back on board basically involved a censure in the well and then also a referral to ethics. And that doesn't sound like much, but ethics investigations can result in permanent disqualifications from holding any state position, prison sentences, restitution fines.

So, it's yeah, so it can potentially result in further action from here. Of course, we'll have to see what ethics finds.

So to find someone $16 million, that wasn't going to fly. I know one of my favorites, Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick, said was against it. And he said, okay, you get that out and I'll vote for it.

So they got the votes, but people are rallying around. And just watching some of the testimony yesterday, the Democrats still think that there was some collusion with Trump or they just hate him so much they just can't open up their eyes. Let's talk about what's happening today in Washington. Man, a consequential relationship with Modi and Biden, correct? Yeah, this is an interesting one to watch because, you know, India is not a democracy by our standards, but this is a relationship that the U.S.

is continuing to pursue for strategic reasons and somewhat like how we've been treating Saudi Arabia, turn a blind eye to human rights violations and, you know, concerns about India not denouncing the Russian invasion in Ukraine, continuing to buy Russian oil. We're trying to really prevent India from going into China's pocket. And so that relationship is one they're going to continue to have. They're holding a press conference today, which is notable because Modi has not taken a question since 2014. It's been like nine years.

Are you kidding? No questions in a democracy. And what they call. A democracy, but this is the same government that has raided the media outlets who have been doing stories about his political opponents. You've got the National Press Club Foundation.

Up in arms today because he just arrested a Defense One reporter who's written for them, charged him with espionage. And the press club is saying that this is not legitimate at all.

So, anyway, they're taking questions.

Now, what I've been hearing is it may not be the traditional. Two by two, where each side gets to pose two questions to each leader and might just be one in one. Hopefully, that doesn't end up being the case, because it would be a real shame if Biden allowed any erosion of norms on US soil. You know, regardless of what we're trying to do with India, it would be really a shame. Although it's a step in the right direction, get them to take a question, we shouldn't be giving them a path on what is, you know.

the way we do things. at the at the White House of all places. I hear you. Modi is doing one thing that I find abhorrent, and I don't think he's been challenged. And if they have this meeting and don't bring it up, it's been a colossal waste of time.

Now I understand that India has a defense relationship with Russia prior to the invasion. But they are taking so much advantage of the world boycott of their oil and the Western evacuation of their cities, taking over these from fast food to oil and gas. at discount, they have without compunction. There's a bad guy and good guy in this. One invaded the other.

Millions have died. Thousands are dying. Are we going to see any pressure behind the scenes or in front of the camera on India to stand down? You know, I hope that we do. It's something that the administration has been asking.

And what we have heard is the same answer that we've gotten when we've posed any similar question, which is just that, you know, this administration is strong on human rights and we're gonna never shy away from making our views known. What happens in front of the cameras might be totally different, but I would hope that in the QA portion of this event today, we get some direct answers. And hopefully, you know, when we have the sort of debrief, when you see John Kirby and other administration officials go on TV afterward to talk about this state visit, state dinner, hopefully we get a little more detail about what has been said and I would hope that as the United States leading this effort, NATO, to support Ukraine, especially as future aid for Ukraine becomes a contentious issue in Congress, that we would not be uh you know, failing to to put a check on places like India outwardly supporting Russia and to date, not even denouncing the war.

So, you know, you brought this up, I think, in the press setting, and that is Cuba relationship with China, setting up spy stations right by Florida, and now possibly a military relationship. The Secretary of State was asked about it, how he stands, and what we're going to do about it. And basically, he is monitoring it closely, Cut 26. I made very clear that we would have deep concerns about PRC intelligence or military. uh activities.

Thank you, Love. This is something we're going to be monitoring. Very, very closely, and we've been very clear about that. And we will protect our homeland, we will protect our interests.

Okay, what does that mean? You know, I would love to know because if we're going to be monitoring it, you would think that we would have heard something along the lines of what we've done to prevent this from getting to a place of concern. When we first learned about this spot, Station, we were told that it didn't exist effectively, only to have them later clarify their statement and say, Well, the article that described it was wrong. It has existed, it's existed since 2019, but we've gotten no answers on what has been done to diffuse the situation or work against it, whether it be directly in conversations with the Chinese or with Cuba.

So we haven't gotten a lot of detail. All we know is that the president, at a fundraiser, Called Xi a dictator, which is probably the strongest language that he has used. And it followed Blinken's meeting with Xi, which no one saw coming because the phone call that Blinken had before that trip was, you know, famously with his, not his counterpart, but the number two.

So we were all looking to a snub when Blinken arrived in Beijing. Didn't go that way. And then Biden answered to that with calling Xi a dictator.

So who knows, you know, what progress was made or was not made. But we'd love to have some concrete answers on, you know, what these discussions are because they've been reticent to talk about that issue. You know, Jackie, just seeing President Trump sit down with, you know, do his town hall and then sit down with Brett for an hour, it makes me long for the days where I don't care who you voted for, who you like or don't like, it must really frustrate you to know that you're covering people that don't want to talk to you at all. And the one thing maybe the world got, the country got spoiled with Trump, that would talk nonstop to the chopper, back to the chopper, his own press secretary. One-on-one with whether it's Chris Wallace or Brett Baer or Sean Hannity or a town hall with Caitlin Collins.

There just doesn't seem to be a willingness to share their thoughts and policies. No, there's there's not. And for all of Trump's, you know, hating on the Fake news media, and that we're the worst people in the world over in the journalism side of things. He did give us access. And I think the thing that's most frustrating with covering this White House is that we don't get that kind of access.

And looking ahead, this campaign is going to continue. They have signaled that they are going to heavily rely on social media platforms, influencers, a network of surrogates to get their message out. We should not be looking for candidate Biden to be sitting down for any interviews or doing any town halls, that kind of thing. I mean, he's going to have to do the debates when he gets the general, but. Short of that, I don't know anything on the horizon that will be different than what we've experienced for the last two years here, which is, you know, every once in a while we get a couple of words in the South lawn trying to hear over the chopper, but beyond that, not a lot of substance.

He still has not sat for an interview with the newspaper. That's nuts. Especially seeing the glide path they put him on almost every day. This is what he said. He didn't come out and just say, hey, by the way, that President Xi's a dictator.

He says this. The reason why President Xi got very upset in terms of when I shot down the balloon with two boxcars full of spy equipment, it was he didn't know it was there. That's a great embarrassment for dictators when they don't know what happened. That wasn't supposed to be going on where it was. It was blown off course.

And then China comes back and says the remarks seriously contradict basic facts, seriously violate diplomatic etiquette, and seriously infringe on China's political dignity.

So if the Secretary of State was trying over there to smooth things out, he certainly seems to have roughed things up. Yeah. And I am not sure what to make of that statement from Biden because on the one hand, it sounds like he's almost giving Xi a pass and saying, yeah, this balloon was really bad. There were two truckloads full of spy gear in it. But Xi had no idea what's going on.

So we've got to continue talking to him, which everyone who is a Biden critic would be quick to jump on and say weakness on China, naivety, these kinds of things. But on the other hand, it does sort of goad China into saying something in terms of, you know, I think to date they've maintained this was a weather balloon.

So their response is somewhat instructive in pushing back on that, but without trying to admit that they actually knew what they were doing. You know, this has been a frosty relationship. I think U.S.-China relations are probably at one of their lowest points in recent memory, and there's no indication that we're going anywhere. And when I ask people, you know, in Congress, people who have access to intelligence information, what keeps them up at night, the thing that they say to me is hypersonic missiles. China's got one.

We don't have one yet. And it's going to be a continuing focus for us. Despite all of the rhetoric we're hearing, there is a much more serious layer to this. I also know you're tapped into what's going on in Ukraine to a degree, and you see the counteroffensive going on right now. They've taken back eight villages and forty-four square miles, and they've just taken out a bridge today, I think, time zone sensitive, taken out a bridge which is a thoroughfare for Russian resupply of their front lines.

Any sense of how the White House feels this is going? They have not wanted to comment on it. I think they're pretty sensitive about. You know, what kind of impact that might have, good or bad. They let the Ukrainians speak for themselves.

All that they really we really hear is that we're going to continue to support Ukraine, give them the material that they need to do that. But they've not wanted to wade in on the discussion about the counteroffensive, where things stand, how it's going. I think probably out of concern. That Russia will seize on that and make the same false claims that they've made in the past about how this is really a a war between the West and Russia and give. um oxygen to the to those claims that they have made.

I think they're just letting Ukraine talk for Ukraine and Continuing to affirm their support and sort of keeping it there. And lastly, Jackie, just your opinion. Is other press frustrated by this? I mean, do you talk to your colleagues and they sit there and go, are we ever going to get an interview? Are we ever going to get a straight answer?

Why do I have to find out about this through diplomatic channels? Is there a sense among the press corps that you're being ignored? Yeah, I think everyone I've not spoken to a single reporter that covers the White House who thinks that the level of access that we have is sufficient. It's just not. Whether that be in Yeah.

access to the president. Interviews with the president, press conferences with the president, or even in the briefing room, you know, we sometimes will. Feel frustration that we're not getting direct enough answers. And if we cannot have the press secretary address an issue, why doesn't she facilitate us getting those questions answered from those who can? It is I think reminiscent of the Obama years where Anita Dunn, who is very very much plays a role in how this White House operates, just doesn't see a value in the media.

And so they they're gonna do things their own way. I haven't seen them respond to much except for negative press. Um in terms of when we we push them, they they do um You know, they do respond to that, I think, in a more visible way than, for instance, our advocacy on the board. I'm on the board of the White House Correspondents Association, and our job is to advocate for access. We ask and we ask and we ask nicely.

And, you know, we do have a good relationship with them, but we don't always get everything that we want. And there's no good explanation for it either. All right, Jackie. Thanks for your explanation for that. Bring us inside Washington.

Our audience appreciates it. I always do too. Jackie Heinrich, thanks. Thanks, Brian. You got it.

When we come back, I'll take some of your calls and find out if there's indeed more to know. You'll listen to the Brian Kill Me Show.

So glad you're here. Mm-hmm.

Thanks for making the Brian Killmeat Show the talkers' number three most important talk show in America. Eight, seven, six, five. How much higher can we go? Yeah. Yeah.

The sky's the limit. And lift off with Brian Kilmead. Breaking news, unique opinions. Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Joe. Hey, welcome back.

We're getting some information now on what's happened with this submersible that was had five people aboard that was going down to see the Titanic. We're hearing bad things about the craft in particular, some bad reports. About the health of it going down. Having said all that, people just want to see if somehow they could find all five of them in this capsule with some oxygen left. They just have reported there's a debris field that was found.

A debris field was discovered within the search area by an ROV near the Titanic.

Now, Eric, the ROV is one that goes on the ground, so that's beneath the. Yeah, the ROVs are smaller, remotely operated vehicles, and they sent a couple of those down, I believe, yesterday, and they've reached the bottom of the ocean near the Titanic. And they see a debris field. This is not clear whether it's the ROVs that found it. All they say is they've identified a debris field.

So you identify a debris field. Milo was thinking is there's buoyancy to the craft. And that anything that was uh available would float up. If it's intact, if it imploded. then it becomes it is no longer neutrally buoyant and it would sink.

That's unbelievable. And now I mean, you have so many resources in that area. If anything's going to be discovered, you would think now is it.

So the debris field, which has been expanded, discovered in the search area.

So the way I understand it, they went right to the area in which the craft was dropped. The submersible was dropped, and then they went to the Titanic, and then they were checking the area over the last six days.

Now, if this is in fact true, it's going to give an answer, but an ugly answer to the end for all five. Again, explorers, you take risks. The craft not considered the best. The risk probably greater than anyone thought. But we'll see if the debris field has anything related to submersible.

Boosting the Brian Killmeek Show. We'll have all the latest breaking news always, everywhere. Don't move. Listen to the show ad-free on Fox News Podcast Plus, on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music with your Prime membership, or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Mm-hmm.