The Great SCIF Scam

Hey, everybody. Speaker Mike Johnson has let us down.

Thomas Massie does the talking in this episode. Senator Mike Lee lays out how it's not too late, but likely improbable, to block the funding of Ukraine in the Senate and more. Email me, as always, freedom at charliekirk.com. Subscribe to our podcast, open up your podcast app and type in charliekirkshow and get involved with Turning Point USA at tpusa.com. That is tpusa.com.

It's already a high school or college chapter today at tpusa.com. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.

That's why we are here. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com. It's where I buy all of my gold.

Go to noblegoldinvestments.com. Joining us now is a great man. He's an ethical man. He's a principled one.

We have a lot to talk about. It's Congressman Thomas Massie. Congressman, thank you for taking the time. Congressman, I just got to ask as plainly as possible, what the hell happened this weekend? Oh, it was the third betrayal of Mike Johnson to the American public and the GOP conference. The State Department, the Pentagon, the Deep State, the FBI, everybody who wanted what they wanted and is not elected got what they wanted. Some people think that Mike Johnson basically rolled over for Chuck Schumer, but the reality is Chuck Schumer's bill was the same as Mike Johnson's bill and it was pre-conferenced with the Pentagon.

I don't know where to start, man. Well, it's just, I mean, let's dive into this because let's start with FISA, right? So FISA was the one that really animated me. I thought that he was this constitutional lawyer, this fighter for freedom, this believer in liberty. And he comes down and says that he doesn't think that the FBI needs to get a warrant to spy on Americans?

That was the breaking point for me. But can we start one before that on the omnibus? Yeah, because the omnibus was the first of three betrayals.

FISA was the second. But Mike Johnson had two choices. Last summer, in exchange for raising the debt limit, Joe Biden agreed to a one percent across the board cut to every aspect of discretionary spending if we did a one-year CR. And Mike Johnson had a choice.

He could do the one-year CR. He could try to finish the five of the 12 bills that we didn't get done under Kevin because we got seven of the 12 separate bills done and the Senate had those sitting over there. They should have acted on him.

Or he could do an omnibus and he chose the omnibus and he chose to spend more money than Nancy Pelosi ever dreamed of spending and her highest year. And we didn't even have 72 hours to read the bill. That was the first time that had been violated since the beginning of Congress.

And as a member of the rules committee, I fought to give everybody 72 hours. So the first big betrayal was that omnibus bill, by the way, funded a new FBI building. Meanwhile, the FBI is laughing at us when we send them subpoenas and requests for information in the oversight and the judiciary committee and the weaponization committee.

So that was the first betrayal. But let's put that behind us and go to FISA because that is the one where people who are defending Mike Johnson right now are saying, well, it's such a slim majority. You can't get everything you want with such a slim majority.

These conservatives are asking for too much. No, that is not what happened with FISA. Mike Johnson did a 180 on the ideology that he's represented to us ever since he's been in Congress and as a member of the judiciary committee. He was there with me and Jim Jordan and Chip Roy and Matt Gaetz and others like Tom McClintock, who were fighting to get warrants.

And he was fighting with us. Then he became speaker and he cast the deciding vote. Now, some people may say he didn't cast the last vote, so it wasn't the deciding vote.

But here's why it was the deciding vote. He didn't vote on the other amendments that day. He didn't vote on the three amendments Intel committee offered, up or down. He voted no on the judiciary committee amendment to offer the, to require a warrant if you want to spy on Americans. And he did it early enough that he convinced a lot of other Republicans to walk the plank. And by the way, it was a majority of Democrats who voted not to have a warrant.

And it was a majority of Republicans who voted for a warrant. So when the vote stalled at 212 to 212, I took a picture of it. I was in disbelief. In front of my eyes was something that for 12 years I've been fighting for, you know.

And here it was going down in flames because Mike Johnson chose the side of the deep state, flipped on us, and now we, and it got reauthorized and we don't have warrants. That, I went home that, that day just thoroughly disgusted. And I spent two days thinking about it. I just, I didn't sleep on it just one night.

I slept on it three nights. And then I came to the GOP conference at the beginning of, of this past week and I stood up in front of everybody and I told Mike Johnson he needed to resign and that I was co-sponsoring Marjorie Taylor Greene's motion to vacate. That was the, that was the last straw for me. And of course we had another betrayal since then. So Congressman, I have several thoughts here. The first of which, what happened?

What would cause somebody to flip from fighting hard in a committee to all of a sudden having the deciding vote as speaker? Was he an imposter all along? I'm coming to that conclusion. I don't think his family's locked up in the basement somewhere, you know, being tortured.

That is, those claims are ridiculous. I don't even believe that he went in a skiff and learned something that we don't know because I spent three and a half hours in the skiff with Mike Johnson. Remember, I'm on the judiciary committee and I got the same briefing he got from CIA, NSA, DOD, FBI, DNI, FISA judge.

They were all in that skiff. It was actually a four hour meeting. After three and a half hours, I said, this is enough. This is a waste of time. You haven't given us one example of where spying on Americans without a warrant was able to help you avert terrorism.

They gave us hypotheticals and then they gave us examples of how spying on foreigners overseas without a warrant was helpful, but they never gave us an example. So you can't, don't believe his story that he went to the skiff and he learned something. That's not true. So, but, but I'm just shocked. I haven't heard anyone say that as crisply as you has. I want to repeat that. You were in the same skiff as speaker Johnson because I got really fired up at speaker Johnson on this vote and I called him and I texted him and he was arguing from authority with me, Congressman saying, Charlie, if you were in the skiff like I was, you would understand. And I literally have this in writing.

You think innocent Americans will die if we require the FBI to get a warrant? I do. So how did, what did he hear that you didn't hear in this song and dance four hour struggle session in the skiff? It was a struggle session.

It was like a brainwashing session. And here's the thing, Charlie, when you go into a skiff, remember most congressmen are used to having two things with them that allow them to verify something if they're being told a lie. Number one, they usually have their smartphone with them. And their staff. And their staff. Exactly. Those two things you are deprived of.

So if you are deprived of those two things and any connection to anybody for three or four hours, you kind of start believing what they're saying and you think, well, maybe they'll let me out of this skiff if I just nod my head and succumb to the pressure. And Mike Turner was in there. He's chair of Intel. It was basically the Mike Turner show. He got to show us.

He had every tool at his disposal, every prop, every representative from the agencies and still couldn't compel us, the members of the Judiciary Committee, because that's what it was. And Mike Johnson was there to vote for this. And maybe Mike got some extra special briefing. But if there's an extra special briefing, he needs to tell us about us and have us get the extra special briefing. On the subject of Ukraine, he encouraged me to go in the skiff again. And I said, I'll go in the skiff on one condition.

You go in with me because I'm going to ask them questions that need to be asked. And also, it's a total waste of time. Mike, you know that. He agreed with me. He actually, to me, he will agree that going into the skiff on FISA for those three and a half hours was a total waste of time. Well, he told the population and he said this privately and publicly, that if every member went in the skiff, they would also vote for FISA. You went into it. And this is what the intel agencies do.

They do this song and dance. It's rooted in fear. They'll always meander.

It's tons of abstractions. And by the way, anything Mike Turner supports, you should inherently vote against. That guy is a warmonger. He is rooted in doublespeak. He is he is not someone that I would trust at all. If it's the Mike Turner show, it might as well be the Adam Schiff show as well, as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, please, really quick. But yeah, to that point, real quick, there were three people Max donated to my primary opponent in 2020. Adam Kinzinger, gone. Liz Cheney, gone. Mike Turner, still in Congress. Now, I can still get along with and we have reasonable discussions, but just to your point, go against whatever Mike Turner's for. Just vote against Mike Turner.

That guy's a waste of rations. So, Congressman, can just there were no specifics shared in the skiff. It was because that's what they always say. They say that if you don't allow us to spy on Americans without a warrant, like a dirty bomb is going to blow up Seattle. Yeah, no specifics relevant to domestic spying. They will give you specifics about foreign plots that have been, you know, intervened on, but nothing domestically where they had to spy on somebody. And they did this, by the way, several years ago.

They said they had 43 examples. And as the more and more truth came out, it turned out there was one example, and they could have solved it a different way or had other information sources. So, it's all hypotheticals, Charlie. It's all hypotheticals. But we're dealing with our liberties here. I mean, you're the foremost fighter of constitutional liberties in the Congress.

You always have been. And I've always admired that about you, especially when it comes to privacy concerns, which is something that I would think the Republicans would be fired up about, given what they did to Donald Trump. But there's this false choice that is presented. If you do not allow the FBI to spy on us, a bunch of people are going to die.

They can't prove the argument. They fear monger with it. But also, let's pretend that there is some truth to the idea of mass surveillance could save lives. Well, I still believe we should have firearm rights, Second Amendment rights, and free speech rights. You're not going to get comfort and liberty. They cannot always coexist, Congressman. Yeah, if you put a policeman on every corner and a camera in everybody's living room, you could probably impose more safety than we have now.

The problem is you give up so many rights and it violates the Constitution. I do want to say there was one person in that SCIF who made sense, and it was the FISA judge. By the way, I'm a little bit uncomfortable that these are secret warrants, but in a court, in a special court. But at least the FISA judges are real judges that work back in, they're federal judges that work back in districts, and they sort of moonlight for FISA.

And one of the arguments that was made is, well, you'll have to contact us when we're not at the FISA court, when we're back in our districts doing our regular judge jobs. And they said, we don't have SCIFs there. Well, that's an easy solution, right? Just give them a SCIF, build them a soundproof room. It's a whole lot cheaper than the $200 million they're going to use to build the new FBI building.

So there was one salient point made, and that was the only point I got out of that SCIF. And again, we're not saying that the government should not be able to ever use surveillance technology. We say, get a warrant, right, Congressman? That's the whole contention.

There's this false choice. How long would getting a warrant take? Like six hours?

Not even six hours. I mean, if you talk to any judge who's issued warrants, judges have issued warrants from the back of motorcycles. I mean, they're on call to issue warrants. And in fact, most of them are allowed anyway. And this is for Americans. This is not for some drug runner in Rwanda, right?

This is for an American in Tampa. Now, let's be clear. They're saying that to direct your spying on an American, you do need a warrant, and that is true. What we want them to do is to get a warrant when they go into this massive database of data that they have collected. Now remember, Charlie, they're not over in Afghanistan snooping on the web servers there. The traffic from Afghanistan goes through US servers and backbones.

Most of the world's internet traffic comes through America at some point. And so they've got the snooping devices here. And they incidentally collect a lot of information on Americans. By the way, they'll say, we're just trying to reveal some bomb making class they took.

But an NSA employee searched his Tinder date there. Folks, so many people I know are disheartened that our country seems to have forgotten the importance of citizenship, and they wonder how a strong sense of citizenship might be revived. That's why my friends at Hillsdale College have produced a free online course on this topic, American Citizenship and Its Decline. Taught by historian Victor Davis Hanson, the course traces the history of citizenship and explains how it is undermined in America today by open borders, by identity politics, by the administrative state, and by globalization.

Americans taking the course will gain a deeper insight about the connection between citizenship and freedom, an insight they can share with their family members, friends, and neighbors. Hillsdale's free online courses are an important component of Hillsdale's mission to reach and teach increasing millions of people on behalf of liberty and the American way of life. So sign up today for Hillsdale's free online course, American Citizenship and Its Decline, by visiting charlieforhillsdale.com. That is charlieforhillsdale.com.

Start your free course today at charlieforhillsdale.com. So, Congressman, let's get to the third chapter in this you call betrayal this weekend. How did we all of a sudden go from the speaker saying no Ukraine money without border security money to a bunch of Ukrainian flags flying in such a short period of time? Walk us through what happened this weekend. Well, it's a long story like how they actually did it.

I want to start here. There was a veteran's bill in the House called HR 815 that was going to expand reimbursements for veterans who got emergency care. The Senate took that bill, stripped everything out of it, and put the funding for this. It's called the foreign aid supplemental.

It's all for foreign wars. They sent it back to the House. What we did this week is we pretended to pass four separate bills and pretended to put those together in one package and send it to the Senate. So we amended the Senate supplemental, the HR 15 that started out as a veteran's bill. I don't mean to confuse you.

I just want to let you know this thing ponged back and forth and it started out under bad pretenses. Now, Speaker Johnson did say he was going to add border to this, but Chuck Schumer said we're not going to pass it if it's got border on it. So, Speaker Johnson took the border off. That's it.

It's that simple. He didn't want to fight here. And then it just glides through with Democrats bailing him out. Can you explain to our audience those details, the Democrats bailing him out? Yeah, so something happened that's never happened in decades. Like, for a bill to pass with bipartisan votes, it's not remarkable.

You usually get one or two Democrats on something, okay? But what happened this week is Speaker Johnson couldn't even get the bill to pass. It's not remarkable.

It's not remarkable. What happened this week is Speaker Johnson couldn't even get the bill to the floor because he couldn't get it through the rules committee. And so what we're talking about this week is he shared power with Hakeem Jeffries, the power to say what bills will come to the floor, how long they'll be debated, how they get combined when they go back to the Senate, that kind of power, which has never been bipartisan. Now, Speaker Johnson this week, asked the Rubicon, frankly, and he went with Hakeem Jeffries to dictate the terms of the debate, which amendments would be allowed, and how this would all get packaged together.

When you're in the majority, you control the rules, you control the procedure, and then people can vote how they want. But this week, Speaker Johnson did the unthinkable, and he shouldered up with Hakeem Jeffries. And that's how he used these procedures and got these bills to the floor. Finally, can you contrast that with Kevin McCarthy, who refused to do a deal with Speaker Jeffries? Essentially it is Speaker Jeffries, but yes.

Yeah. Kevin had a lot of choices. He could have walked across the aisle and asked Hakeem Jeffries to bail him out, for instance, on the Fiscal Responsibility Act last summer. But instead, Kevin drove a hard line and he said, we're going to get this 1% cut in there and we're going to get budget caps in exchange for doing this.

So he got something for it. Instead of crossing the lines, he pushed them to do something they didn't want. And then when the motion to vacate was called, before it was called, Kevin could have changed the rule on the motion to vacate. He would have needed Democrats to do that. He did not try to do that. We saw Speaker Johnson try to do that this week.

This is what happens in banana republics and third world countries is when somebody gets power, they change the rules for the next election or the date of the next election. And that's what Mike Johnson tried to do. He admitted as much in a Twitter post, an ex-post. He said, I think we should change the rule that allows people to get rid of me.

And I tried to change the rule that allows people to get rid of me, but I didn't have enough votes from the Democrats. So that's something that Kevin never did. And Kevin also never went into the rules committee.

That place is sacrosanct. It's called the Speaker's Committee. Now Kevin put three of us, you might consider us rebels, Chip Roy, Ralph Norman, and myself on there, gave us a blocking position. But every time that the three of us needed to block because Kevin was off track, he would work with us instead of going and getting all the Democrats in that committee to vote with him. So there's several precedents.

People don't understand this back home, I think. Speaker Johnson, these are not just bipartisan bills. This is a bipartisan speakership. He's allowed sharing power in the rules committee and on procedures. So just he surrendered the speakership. We now have a power sharing agreement. Is it fair to say Republicans don't control the House really anymore? That is correct. Mike Johnson can't control the House.

He's the uni-party speaker. And you saw them celebrating with those flags. It's against House rules to wave flags like that. But they celebrated because they got everything they wanted. Every Democrat voted for that Ukraine spending and a majority of Republicans voted against it. Yeah, there they are waving the flags. I sat there. I took video from a different angle, but I recognize that video. I'm still stinging from being surrounded by people waving those flags. It's just disgusting. What country do you represent?

Like go in the front lines of careful all that. I care. Congressman, you're a great man. Thank you so much. Thanks for your thanks, Charlie. Thank you.

Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here. What an unbelievable start to 2024. We had last month saving babies with preborn by providing ultrasounds, and we're doing again this year what we did last year. We're going to stand for life because remaining silent in the face of the most radically pro-death administration is not an option. As Sir Edmund Burke said, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

And we're not going to do nothing. Your gift to preborn will give a girl the truth about what's happening in her body so that she can make the right choice. $280 can save 10 babies. $28 a month can save a baby a month all year long.

And a $15,000 gift will provide a complete ultrasound machine that will save thousands of babies for years and years to come and will also save moms from a lifetime of pain and regret. Call 833-850-2229. That's 833-850-2229 or click on the preborn banner at charliekirk.com. That is charliekirk.com and click on the preborn banner.

Also save moms from a lifetime of pain and regret. I'm a donor of this organization. They're terrific.

Go to charliekirk.com, click on the preborn banner. Joining us now is one of the few good guys in the Kingdom of Washington, D.C. I'll be going to his home state tomorrow, which is why I'll be off on the show tomorrow. Senator Mike Lee, Senator, welcome to the program. I'll be in Utah tomorrow, Senator. Fantastic.

It's a good place. I'm unfortunately stuck in Washington, D.C., which is far inferior to Utah. Well, I agree.

I wouldn't want to have your job. So, Senator, walk us through. The Senate hasn't passed this bill yet. Is that correct? The foreign aid bill?

Walk us through it. Right. Yeah, so it was passed by the House of Representatives on Saturday. Remember, it was passed in, I believe, four constituent parts by the House of Representatives.

They used a procedure that we colloquially refer to in Washington as the MERV. They merge all four of those bills as if mid-air as it's leaving the House of Representatives before it reaches the Senate and it arrives to us as one bill. And it's arriving in the form of what's known as a message from the House of Representatives, which truncates some of our procedures. Part of how they're pushing this through. This is kind of odd, given that they intentionally utilized a procedure that they knew would make it easier for members to vote for it, or at least for various parts of it, but then sent it over to the Senate, where we're asked to take it as a one size fits all, take it or leave it proposition.

That by itself is unfortunate. In any event, we'll take that up tomorrow. One of my goals is to at least push to have some amendments on it. We ought to be able to amend this thing to make it less bad than it is. In all probability, they're going to move heaven and earth to avoid taking amendment votes on it, but we can make it difficult for them. So is it filibuster proof, too, or do you think they'll be able to break that rather easily? So it's it's still subject to the 60-vote cloture standard, which is one of the more common usages of the word filibuster.

Usually that's what it's referring to, and I assume that's how you mean that term here. So yeah, it's still subject to the 60-vote cloture standard. They have to bring debate to a close before we can pass the bill, and that takes three fifths of the Senate or 60 votes.

The fear is that they'll have that and perhaps more than that. But the good news is, among Republicans, they can't pass this without Republican votes, because you can't pass it unless you bring debate to a close. You can't bring debate to a close without 60 votes. And there are only 51 Democrats in the Senate. The other 49 are all Republicans. So if all Republicans stood together on this bill and said we're not going to vote for it, or even just said we're not going to vote for it unless we have a full robust amendment process where individual members are allowed to offer up suggestions as to how to make the bill better or less bad, as you may perceive it, we could stop it. That's going to be the challenge tomorrow.

I would love to see that. Republicans really ought to stand by each other's procedural rights in the Senate. And I'd like to think that we would stand up for something that's being cheered by the left instead of facilitating what the left wants to do, which is what happened in the House last week.

Yeah. So I hope there's no Ukrainian flags tomorrow on the Senate floor. Can you help our audience understand, help me understand what is the major drive of the urgency for neocon politics in D.C.?

You've been around for quite some time. There is this priority on nation building, of war funding. We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars right now that we know of.

For what? Why is this such a top priority for the Uniparty in Washington? You know, the Uniparty and the military industrial complex love each other, surely. And it's part of how this weird alliance gets formed between left and right on projects like this one. The left understands that this is the Achilles heel of many Republicans. If they can get them to go all in on war, particularly those Republicans who are beholden to the military industrial complex in one way or another, they can tie it together in spending bill after spending bill to get Republicans to agree to support bloated budgets, to support appropriations bills that are completely lopsided and out of sync with what the American people want and more importantly, what they can afford. This is a lot of the reason why we're $34.5 trillion in debt is because of these dynamics. The Republican Party's attachment to unnecessary wars and to the military industrial complex is very, very costly, not just because they get us involved in wars that we have no business being involved in, but also because it's the teaser rate. It's the trick that gets Republicans to vote for things they know better than to vote for.

So I want to play a piece of tape here, and I think it's very illuminating and it's eye opening, which is cut 28. This is Representative Tom Cole from Oklahoma saying that there's a reservoir of goodwill against Mike Johnson. But I want I don't want to have you talk about Mike Johnson. We need to talk about how D.C. is thrilled with this last weekend and the people are livid. The fault line is remarkable.

Play cut 28. But the point is, he's gotten a lot done. I think people admire him. They genuinely like him. They all respect him. Every single Republican voted for him.

I don't think that any other person could have done that at the time other than Mike Johnson. So the reservoir of goodwill is enormous. I think he's much stronger than the people seem to think. And I think he's demonstrated that by what he's passed. So the comments on Mike Johnson aside, Senator, but what is being done is wildly unpopular with the American people. And they seem not to care. That doesn't seem like a representative form of government to me.

Oh, but Charlie, come on. The reservoir of goodwill is really deep reservoir of goodwill from Democrats, certainly reservoir of goodwill from more sort of establishment of old guard Republicans. Absolutely. Reservoir of goodwill from the military industrial complex and from those in the Department of Defense and related agencies that really like this stuff. Absolutely.

Deep reservoir. But there's a real disconnect between that and the reservoir of goodwill that may exist among the American people, among the voters who put us here, particularly Republican voters and rank and file Republican members, many of whom feel alienated because they've been betrayed, frankly. They elected leadership on one set of premises. And those premises have not been honored. In fact, they've been outright neglected.

And they have every reason to be upset. Look, Republicans said just not too many weeks ago. We said this for months consistently. Not another dime, not another penny goes to Ukraine. Until at a minimum, the border is secure. Until at a minimum, we've been able to pass legislation that would force President Biden's hand so as to, you know, disable this wholesale invasion across our southern border that he is invited and been facilitating in a way that's been very costly to Americans and that's been an absolute goldmine for international drug cartels who have made many tens of billions of dollars off of this.

And all of a sudden, those conditions have just been neglected. It's as if we never made any nod in that direction. And we're passing now basically the same measure that Republicans were saying we would never pass in the House unless our conditions had been met, which they have not.

In no way have they been made. And to make matters worse, Charlie, just days ago, the Democrats in the Senate, they were basically nuked the impeachment clauses of the Constitution. You know, the House having impeached Secretary Mayorkas for facilitating the invasion and violating federal law and lying to Congress, Democrats just said, yeah, we're not going to deal with it. They didn't reach a finding of guilt or innocence. They just said those aren't impeachable. And if those aren't impeachable, up means down and yes means no. This is this is horrific. But you just brute force Schumer just tabled it, saying, I don't want to deal with it right now.

So I want to get to Ukraine now and I want to get into some detail here. The 60 billion dollars, how much total have we spent so far, Senator? Over 113 billion so far. Have we done the accounting of that?

Is there like a forensic audit? Do we know where all that money has gone? No, no, we don't.

And in fact, we know that not all of it can be accounted for, at least not all of it can be accounted for in a way that would reflect what the priorities were supposed to be. You saw a virtual admission out of the White House and some of our intelligence gathering agencies not too long ago when they rather publicly started sending the signal to the Zelensky administration in Ukraine. You know, you can't make the corruption quite this bad.

It can't be this severe and this obvious. Don't be stealing quite so much of this money anymore. So we know that's been underway. And yet we're still sending them more money, not just a little bit more money, but another between 60 and 61 billion dollars.

This is crazy. And just does anyone think it's actually going to win the war for the Ukrainians? No one that I know believes that this sum of money is going to win the war for the Ukrainians.

I don't know one person who believes that. And, you know, clearly in their more honest moments, when you get people from the Department of Defense in a room and you get them talking, it was not too many months ago when we, a bunch of senators were talking to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. And we asked him how much longer would this war take?

And I think his guess in that moment was something like six, seven, eight more years. And I can only assume that the costs are going to continue to be, you know, between 50 and 100 billion dollars a year just on our end. I haven't heard one person say that this installment is going to make the difference between victory and defeat for Ukraine. And in fact, what we're doing, I think we're making a brokered peace settlement, brokered peace negotiation, more and more elusive by sending this money over there.

And it's truly tragic. Look, it's a big win for those who are going to be making the weapons that we sent over there. They're going to make a lot of money. And this is a good deal for Ukrainian oligarchs and their second and third ones in Florence. Yep, that's right. Without question.

Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here. As you know, Mike Lindell has a passion to help you get the best sleep of your life after he invented the world's best pillow. He created the famous Giza dream sheets. They are the best sheets you'll ever sleep on.

The best night's sleep, just like you sleep on the best night's sleep just got even better for a limited time. You'll get a queen size set of fifty nine ninety eight king size for just sixty nine ninety eight. The lowest prices in history. Mike and the MyPillow employees continue to be canceled by big box stores and attacked by the media.

They appreciate they appreciate all of your great support during these times. Want to thank you by giving you the best specials on all their MyPillow products to get the best specials on all their products. If you want to get the best specials on all their products, go to MyPillow.com or call 800-875-0425. Use promo code Kirk. You get the famous Giza dream sheets, queen size for just fifty nine ninety eight and king size for just sixty nine ninety eight. You also get sixty percent off the original my slippers.

So call 800-875-0425 or go to MyPillow.com promo code Kirk. Senator, can you walk us through the Repo Act and how that could potentially neuter a Trump administration that would be incoming? What is the Repo Act? Yeah, so the Repo Act is this means by which many people are saying we can get money, seize Russian assets basically to no cost to the United States, and send that money over for things like the war in Ukraine when it's not really our money, American taxpayer money.

It's just not really true. They're talking about a large number of assets that are Russian assets that could be seized, but those Russian assets that could be seized that the United States has the ability to go after are relatively few. I mean, I think it's limited to around eight billion or so. And this is one of many ways in which dominoes could fall once we start undertaking this.

As I understand it, under customary international law, this is a fairly extreme step to take under these circumstances, and it's likely to result in a series of retaliatory actions by Russia that could impact U.S. investment within Russia in a pretty adverse way, potentially harming more U.S. interests than it ever would Russian interests in the United States. So, Senator, I also want to get your thoughts on the FISA vote. That one wasn't as covered. Is that now officially passed the Senate? Yeah, it's passed the Senate, passed both houses of Congress.

This was a real disappointment. Look, last week was a doozy because we had a failed Mayorkas impeachment vote. We had this horrific bill passed in the House of Representatives coming over to the Senate now, and then we had, following the House capitulation on FISA the previous week. Last week, we had the Senate pass, the House passed FISA bill without a single modification, with the Turner Amendment intact, the Turner Amendment, which expands the government's authority under FISA, and without, most importantly, a warrant requirement, a warrant requirement that would have been limited to situations in which the government is searching for a particular U.S. citizen. What private communications that you as a specific U.S. citizen may have stored on the FISA 702 collection database? Lots of Americans may, unbeknownst to them, have communications with someone who's outside the United States and maybe on the federal government's target list overseas, people who are legitimately being spied on by the U.S. government. But if you're an American citizen and you talk to one of those people, you probably have no idea whether they're on there, your end of those conversations over the phone, by text message, email, and otherwise, are stored somewhere in a FISA 702 database. My argument for years has been before you get onto that database and search for, you know, if it's you they're wanting to look into, show me all that everything you've got on Charlie Kirk. You, sir, are an American citizen.

And for them to search for that on you, given the way they collected it without any warrant, they should have to get a warrant before they open communications that they've searched after specifically by using your name or your number. And the Senate refused to add that. This is this is really, really disappointing and it's a setback for the Fourth Amendment. Senator, thank you for fighting hard.

It is incredibly disappointing that the House and the Senate of America, they don't believe in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I will give you a live I'll give you a live report from Utah tomorrow. Senator, thanks so much. Thanks so much. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us as always. Freedom at Charlie Kirk Dotcom. Thanks so much for listening and God bless.