Best of the Program | Guests: Sen. Marco Rubio & Carol Roth | 3/21/24

This episode is brought to you by FXX and Hulu.

Futurama returns on September 15th, blending heartfelt moments with razor-sharp humor while accidentally saving the day.

The Planet Express crew is back, defying gravity and common sense.

From the creator of The Simpsons comes 10 new episodes where the romance is hotter, the threats are bigger, and the action hits harder.

Don't miss the all-new season of Futurama returning September 15th at 8 p.m.

Watch it on FXX or streaming on Hulu.

Hey, you don't want to miss a second of today's podcast.

We talk about the amazing, life-changing discoveries and abilities now of the first transplant for Neuralink.

It came out yesterday.

We talk about it with Ray Kurzweil and

what the terrifying future of that might be.

Might be.

Also, Senator Marco Rubio joins us.

There was a story that says he's on the very short list of Donald Trump's vice presidential list.

How does he respond to that?

Also, The Economy with Carol Roth and so much more.

Don't miss it.

Today's podcast begins right after this.

If you are living in pain, I'm sure you have thought you've tried absolutely everything.

But if you haven't tried Relief Factor, then you haven't.

It was the last thing I tried for pain, and it has changed my life forever.

I got my life back.

Maybe today is the day you should try.

Maybe today is the day you begin to get your life back.

Relief Factor is a daily supplement that helps your body fight pain 100% drug-free, and it was developed by doctors to help reduce or eliminate pain.

Over a million people have tried Relief Factor's Quick Start, and 70% of them have gone on to order it again and again.

See how Relief Factor can help you with their three-week quickstart kit.

It's $19.95.

It comes with Relief Factor's Feel Better or your money-back guarantee, so give it a try.

ReliefFactor.com or call 1-800-4 Relief.

1-800, the number 4 Relief.

When you feel the difference, you know it works.

ReliefFactor.com.

You're listening to the best of the Blenbeck program.

Let me just take you through a couple of things here right off the bat that I think just show how bright everybody truly is today.

Let's start in Congress.

Let's start with Bobolinski yesterday telling Congress about Biden and who was the big guy.

Cut three.

Mr.

Bobolinski, who's the big guy?

Joe Biden.

Are you sure about that?

Because when

Joe Biden?

You're sure?

I'm 1,000% sure.

Because when Hunter Biden did his deposition under oath, he said, I don't know who it is, even though he was copied on an email that said H will hold 10% for the big guy.

You sure it's the big guy is Joe Biden?

1,000%.

And there's other text messages that back that up that the brave whistleblowers, Shapley and Ziegler, have produced, not from my phones, not from my BlackBerry that I took screenshots from.

They took them from subpoenas directly from Apple's iCloud that back up the fact that Hunter knew the big guy was Joe Biden.

The big guy is the brand.

The big guy is the Lyft.

The big guy is the one who showed up at golf outings, who took phone calls and meetings and lunches and dinners with Hunter Biden and his business associates.

Is that right?

Correct.

All right, let me go to cut nine here.

This is Bob Olinski.

Why do the Bidens lie?

I want to be crystal clear.

From my direct personal experience and what I've subsequently come to learn, it is clear to me that Joe Biden was the brand being sold by the Biden family.

His family's foreign influence peddling operation from China to Ukraine and elsewhere sold out to foreign actors who are seeking to gain influence and access to Joe Biden and the United States government.

Joe Biden was more than a participant in and a beneficiary of his family's business.

He was an active, aware enabler who met with business associates such as myself to further the business, despise being buffered by a complex scheme to maintain plausible deniability.

I asked this big question.

If there's no evidence of corruption here today, If Joe's conduct and the conduct of his family were fully legal and proper, then why are they so dishonest about it?

Hmm.

I don't know, but Jamie Raskin,

the co-chair of the committee, he's a Democrat, he was a little upset that people were saying that, well, he was a liar.

But the same people preaching this mantra know better.

They continue to lie directly to the American people without hesitation and remorse.

Rep Dan Goldman and Jamie Raskin, both lawyers, and Mr.

Goldman, a former prosecutor with the SDNY from New York, will continue to lie today in this hearing and then go straight to the media to tell more lies.

Hunter Biden's defense attorney, Abby Lowell, weaponized his letters to Congress to try to smear my name

and state the cold hard facts

in an attempt to save his privately connected mind and his father.

I challenge Mr.

Lowell to make those claims on national television so he can be held accountable for his lies.

Prior to my successful business career, I was an officer in the United States Navy at Navy's elite Naval Nuclear Power Training Command.

I later served as

the command's chief technology officer.

Please proceed.

I apologize for the disruption from the minority.

Am I supposed to say it's my time, Mr.

Raskin?

Mr.

Bobolinski, please

come to order.

Mr.

Bobolinski, Mr.

Bobolinski, please proceed.

Please proceed.

I apologize for the disruption disruption from the minority.

Okay.

Well, Mr.

Chairman, save his time, but he called members of this committee liars, and I just want to know whether the order and decorum requirements of House Rule 11 apply to witnesses appearing before the committee.

Okay, stop for a second.

Stop, stop, stop.

I got to tell you, what does that mean?

What is he trying to say here?

I want to know, because we have a rule, we can't call each other liars on the record.

You're not going to allow him to call, we can call them liars, but they can't call us liars can they well apparently they can here's the rest of the clip

does it apply or does it not

he's checking with counsel now

there's hard light there's decorum from the members we've asked for that there's no language that i'm aware of pertaining to a witness thank you so so

don't make sure we didn't waste any of his time on the opening statement.

Mr.

Bobolinski, I'm sorry for the disruption.

Please continue your opening statement.

I think you, Mr.

Askin, you're right.

We'll make sure it's right.

I just want to restate.

Make sure the American people hear all these facts.

Abby Lawrence.

Okay.

Now,

AOC,

she's always good, you know, for a laugh or two.

Here she is with Bobolinski yesterday.

I believe the fact that he was sitting with me while I was putting together a Did you witness the president commit a crime?

Is it your testimony today?

Yes.

And what crime do you have you witness?

How much time do I have to go through it?

It is simple.

You name the crime.

Did you watch him steal something?

Corruption statutes, RICO, and consolidation.

What is it?

What is the crime, sir?

Specifically.

You asked me to answer the question.

I answered the question.

RICO, you're obviously not familiar with corruption.

Excuse me, sir.

Excuse me, sir.

Excuse me, sir.

RICO is not a crime.

It is a category.

What is the

category of crimes that you're then charging

a long hundred

name exact statute under RICO?

Yes.

Well, it's funny.

In this committee room, everyone's not here.

There's over eight

my lawyers that went to law school.

They are just so

bad.

They are so bad and so desperate.

They can't let anybody talk.

I mean,

it is, it's remarkable that these people can tie their shoes.

It really is.

They're so,

they are so incredible.

They are so incredibly lost.

What evidence do you have?

Naomi can tie her stupidity.

Yeah, Yeah, I have no idea.

Oh my gosh.

Well, you're right.

You're right.

It's truly remarkable to me that these people

are even listened to, even a little bit.

I mean, at any amount, these people are...

You know, I read a story last night that

talked about

how the students are suing their school because they couldn't have a drag show.

They couldn't have a drag show.

Wow, really?

That's what you found important?

The drag show?

That's what you're spending your time on?

The drag show with everything else that is going on in the world?

That's what you deem important.

Really?

They don't want to talk about the crime that is a result, a direct result of people like AOC, their stupid reimagining of the police.

Didn't seem to work out well, did it?

And then she stands by while the man or the woman in her case puts troops in some of the largest cities in America.

You have armed troops in your subways

and you're not speaking.

You're a Marxist.

You're not speaking out about that?

Did you maybe miss all the sex trafficking because of your open border ideas or the abuse of all of the women who have been raped on their way here because of your brilliant humans can't be a legal stance?

Maybe the deaths of fentanyl for all of those Americans, 100,000 a year,

you just, you don't care about that.

No, no, no.

You don't even mention it from time to time.

And I'm kind of surprised because you kind of see like you're the person or you try to make yourself appear as though you're the person that cares about the plight of the poor and the downtrodden more than any other American.

It's just you fighting this fight.

No, no, no, no.

No, no, no.

You're too busy talking about the crimes of the past while an old rich white guy steals everybody's future by having his son lick the butts of communist dictators and oil oligarchs in Ukraine and Moscow.

You don't care.

No, no, no.

The Bidens are creating jobs.

His son is creating jobs for women.

Yeah, sure, that result in, you know, being beaten up after the hard day of work, being beaten up by their pimps.

Have you missed the fact that China is making fentanyl in Mexico?

Selling it to the drug cartels at costs so they can kill people in America of all races, including the special races that seem to be the only ones you care about.

You don't even care about reporters being jailed anymore.

Inflation, borrowing a hundred,

borrowing in every hundred days, one trillion dollars, something we can never pay off.

I'm trying to figure you liberals out because the CIA and Intel, the five I's now are all collaborating.

They're all working together to spy on Americans while we spy on their citizens and then we swap information.

What happened to you guys?

You're in bed now with major corporations who are in bed with big government who are only enriching themselves by impoverishing the working class.

Is there not a Marxist that cares about the working class anymore?

My gosh.

You don't care about nuclear war.

Nope.

Nope.

Nope.

For some reason, the liberals are now all pro-war.

I don't understand that.

I mean, holy cow.

What happened to you?

Oh, I forget.

I forget.

That's right.

Your holy order of drag queens show can't be held now.

You can't hold a service for that, you know, in an institute of higher learning.

My gosh, you people are idiots.

Just incredible idiots.

I mean, you you are the robber barons of idiots.

You you are remarkable, really, truly remarkable.

Do you guys have one working brain cell?

It's a miracle that the whole lot of you could put your brain cells together and it would amount enough to enough brain cells to get one of you to breathe.

My

may I just recommend that all of those on on the left and these kids who care so deeply about drag shows try reading the gods of the copybook headings.

See how this all works out.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I forgot.

I forgot you can't read.

You go to school, you can learn how to march, you can learn how to protest, you can learn how to burn cities down, but you still can't read.

Well, you sound out some of the small words, and then when mommy is finished, you know,

demanding that you get a higher grade in class from your professor, maybe she can come home and read it to you while you eat warm cookies and make yummy noises.

How do you miss that you're gonna all end up eating each other?

History's biggest whinos, epic losers, insane, insanely stupid, the shareholders of pets.com and all those who thought BLM Inc.

actually cared about people like you.

They're all laughing at you.

Do you not notice that?

Can't you hear that?

That laughter is coming from all of the idiots in history who learned their lesson.

My gosh.

Despite what your teachers have told you, you're not special.

You didn't win that trophy because you deserved it.

You're a loser.

You lost.

And you'll continue to be an epic joke until you realize this and wake up.

And if you feel this is a micro-aggression, I'm sorry.

I meant it as a macro aggression.

I'm sorry.

Jeez.

You are simply a face in the mob of uneducated, self-absorbed children that, when all is said and done, will be remembered by historians as fascistic monsters.

Oh, and idiots.

You know that lived-in feeling your house has?

Years worth of kids running around spilling stuff, breaking things.

Yeah, it's nice and all, but when it comes to putting your house on the market, you know, it doesn't really, they don't really want that lived-in feel, you know.

So, what are you going to do?

You got to know who to hire.

You got to know, you got to know who's really, really good, who can get the job done, who understands that you're on a budget,

and then can really say, this matters, this matters, this matters when it comes to selling your home.

If you have a real estate agent that has that Rolodex of people, has the experience, and is already one of the top sellers in your area.

There is, it's not a coincidence.

They didn't get there because they have a catchy name or web address.

The reason they're successful is because they know the best business practices and they're good listeners, and they also know that has to change for us to sell the house.

It's realestate agentsitrust.com.

Realestate agents I trust.com.

Free service to you, whether you're moving across the street or across the country.

All you have to do is call.

We'll put you in touch with the right real estate agent in your area.

Realestateagents I trust.com.

Now back to the podcast.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program, and we really want to thank you for listening.

Carol Roth is joining us, the author of You Will Own Nothing.

And you will like it, y'all.

She doesn't think you're going to like it that much.

Former investment banker Carol Roth.

Welcome to the program, Carol.

Thanks, Glenn.

I know we've got a lot of big news today, and I'd just like to clear up that I am not on the short list for the VP pick for Trump.

So just want to get that out of the way.

Just want to get that out of the shop.

Good.

Thank you.

I was kind of hoping, but yeah, he turned me down too.

Anyway,

so

let's start with the Fed.

The Fed didn't lower rates yesterday.

We've been thinking they were going to, but as I, maybe I read this story wrong, so help me out.

But what I read was they're probably going to keep the rates the way they are this year,

maybe raise them next year, you know, like after the election.

Is that what they said?

I think you mean cut them.

So the Fed has been very good at telegraphing to the market, at least of late, what it plans to do, at least right before it does or doesn't do something, as was the case yesterday in the last few Fed meetings.

So it was pretty clear on Wall Street.

I think it was like a 1% chance of a cut.

So we didn't get that cut.

What Powell did say is he telegraphed that he does believe there will be cuts coming, that he does think that the interest rate that we're at right now is at the highest level that it will be.

So he telegraphed that he doesn't think barring something

going in a very strange direction.

He doesn't doesn't think they're going higher, he thinks they're going lower.

And there's something that's called the dot plot that comes out, which is the projections of all of the Fed governors and the presidents of the different Fed banks before they all talk.

So, this is like their anonymous, like, hey, here's where I think things are going.

And they are still telegraphing three rate cuts this year.

I think that may be too many.

I think it may just be a couple.

But there's one other thing that came out that is also in that kind of accommodative monetary policy stance so they have two tools to be more accommodative they can either cut rates or they could um you know go out in the market and they can purchase securities or at least move from what they're doing now which is they're tightening they have as we know trillions and trillions of dollars on the balance sheet we were almost up to nine trillion dollars they have let about a million a trillion and a half of that run off so they're not selling those they're just saying hey as those mature, we're not going back in the market and replacing it.

What they telegraphed yesterday, which is really important,

is we're not going to probably do this.

And

they hadn't discussed it yet, Glenn, but they're going to probably discuss it at the next meeting.

But we don't think we're going to keep doing that.

We're not going to let that runoff happen at the same level that we did before.

We're going to slow that down.

And that is very accommodative as well so this is another way that they're they're addressing the issues in the market and the reason is because of all of this chaos that they want to avoid in the treasury market because we don't have enough people who want to buy u.s debt at reasonable quote-unquote interest rates

so

so wait so they're not going to buy more debt of our debt or they

or they will so they they had bought up to almost nine trillion What they had done

over the last couple of years is they have let run off.

So they have not rebought about a trillion and a half of that.

So, you know, seven and a half trillion, give or take, you know, a couple,

what's a couple hundred billion amongst friends, right?

So they had been teaching that and they had a cap of about $95 billion.

I think it was a month that they were going to do.

That's the pace of this runoff.

Well, they're not going to let it run off that much anymore.

They're going to probably, you know, they hadn't discussed it yet, but they kind of felt like that's where things were going.

And it's just, if you go back to, I don't know when it was, probably 2010, when Ron Paul in Congress was basically grilling then Fed chair Ben Bernagu, who started all of this adding to the balance sheet.

And he said, where's the balance sheet going to go, Ben?

And he's like, well, I think it'll go back down under a trillion dollars.

Well, guess what?

Wah, wah, wah.

Basically, Jerome Powell said, yeah, that's not going to happen anymore.

And that is an accommodative piece, a loosening of the current stance of monetary policy.

So, how do we survive

with the loosening of monetary policy from the Fed just taking on more debt, us taking on more debt, and this new Biden budget, which is eye-popping?

Yeah.

so the fed is at the current time is at least saying they're not taking on any more debt they're just not gonna let it run off quite as quickly they're just gonna keep what they have for now uh

funny thing is as a great investment right yeah it's it's fantastic so so the the funny thing here this is a little bit backward thinking but as they loosen policy if they were to lower interest rates it actually helps us out because we have such huge deficits that need to be financed.

And the higher the interest rate is, the more interest that we have to pay and the more inflation ultimately that is going to create.

So basically the Fed and the government have been fighting against each other.

And instead of just coming out and saying, listen, Congress, listen, Biden, we need you guys to get your acts together.

We're trying to do something to save the country and you need to do your part.

There's a lot of dancing around this issue.

And the funny thing is,

we've had all these letters coming from the progressives, from the Bernie Sanders, and the Elizabeth Warrens, saying you've got to lower interest rates because of climate projects and things like that.

Well, guess what, guys?

You're in Congress, you're in charge of the budgets and the purse strings.

How about you just stop spending, and then we wouldn't be in the position we're in today.

Okay, so there's another story from FinCEN.

Now, FinCEN

is the criminal arm of the Treasury Department.

Well, I shouldn't say it that way.

All of it seems to be criminal, but these are the ones that go after

money laundering and things like this.

These are the ones that now small businesses, if you have under 20 employees, you have to register with them so they know you're not a criminal.

It's crazy.

There's more now dropping on FinCEN?

Yes.

So this Corporate Transparency Act beneficial ownership information rule that we've been talking about with FinCEN, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Department of the Treasury, as you noted, Congress gave them all of this authority under this rule.

And the first thing they decided to do is we're going to make a database of all small business owners.

If you have an LLC, if you have an S-Corp, whatever it is, as long as there is an entity around it, so not if solopreneurs haven't registered with their Secretary of State, they wouldn't be included.

But if if you have an entity because they're trying to go after those money launderers and those cartel people who you know are the first people who are going to register with vincent so we've been talking about this

sending a lot of information um to many of your listeners and people are really starting to understand what's going on here what but they've decided to do something else so now they said well we also feel like we need to go after residential real estate transfers under the corporate Transparency Act.

So basically, if you have property in your family that you know, it could be a home, it could be a farm, it could be a vacation home, and you transfer that to somebody else in your family or otherwise via a trust, and there is no financing involved in that.

You're not getting a loan, nobody's paying a piece, it's just a gift transfer.

They would also like for you to register that now because we've given them an inch, right?

Because

they want to make sure, Glenn, that the cartels and the money launderers aren't parking their money in

their homes.

Because again, if you're a money launderer or you're someone in the cartel, I'm sure you're going to be very forthcoming about your beneficial ownership information.

So, again, now we have this, this is a proposed rule.

So, I'm going to tell everyone now, I'm going to put up a letter later today on Twitter.

I want you guys to copy it and comment on it because we have till April 16th.

But this will basically say: if you're somebody who's involved in real estate transactions, so you're a real estate attorney,

you are perhaps somebody involved in the closing process, you are now going to have to collect information not only on the person who is selling the property, but who it is being transferred to.

You're going to have to alert FinCEN, you're going to have to keep records.

So this not only violates privacy, it's going to create a ton of fees and it's going to create issues for anybody who's in that business.

And it really seems to me I don't know.

So

if I wanted to transfer the property to my wife,

I would now have to alert, and they're going to do what with that information?

What does that mean for me?

Yes.

So that means that during your closing process to effect this transfer, that the people who are involved, the attorneys, somebody involved with the closing, is going to say, hi, I have have to report lots of information to FinCEN.

So now you're going to give me all kinds of information on who you are, Glenn, who your wife is, and all of this invasive information so that FinCEN can create a database on that to go out.

There you go.

Yes.

There you go.

That's what I'm asking for.

Why are they keeping track of people's assets?

Is that to eventually seize them?

Tax them.

This is where you and I are going in the same direction.

So now we have a database of people who own small business entities.

Then they want to start with real estate.

And I understand it's just transfers at first.

But if you think that it's cashless transfers and it's not going to stop at that, when we've already now leaked from small business entities to residential real estate cashless transfers, we know where this is going next.

So it seems to me in the spirit of you will own nothing that they really want to know where all your assets are.

And if you go back to the bigger thesis of the fact that we do not have enough money in the government that they're receiving in order to pay their debts and to continue to sustain things like their social security Ponzi schemes and all of these promises that they've made, it seems to me they want to know what are the value of all of these assets because you know, wouldn't that be interesting if they could come after those and find a way to seize or tax or whatever those assets to help pay for all of the spending.

It is all very much connected and this absolutely has to be stopped.

You're listening to the best of Glenbeck.

Check out the full show podcast to listen to the rest of this interview.

Welcome to the Glenbeck program.

So a couple of days ago, I

tweeted out or went on X and wrote, the House just passed a bill that could lead to a TikTok ban.

It's no secret China is using TikTok to divide and spy on America.

It's why I was happy when Blaze Media deleted the app.

But are we about to give away more of our freedom in the name of national security?

I wasn't sure on which side I fell on.

That's why I did the show last night on Blaze TV, and I had two people, Thomas Massey and Chip Roy, debate it.

And

I think I'm very clear on where I stand now, but it's in the hands of the Senate.

And Marco Rubio's office saw that tweet and asked if he could come on and maybe clear things up on what's happening in the Senate and where he stands.

Senator Marco Rubio, welcome to the program.

Well, actually, I wanted to try to convince you to move to Florida.

That's the problem.

Everybody's moving to Florida.

Have you seen the prices of houses?

Holy cow.

It only helps.

It's a great place.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

So

where do you stand stand on this?

Well, I've been calling for this since 2019,

but I want to explain why.

First of all, let me just say that having a debate about this is a good thing.

I mean, we don't do that in the US.

Yes, it is.

This idea that we're going to ban a company from operating in the United States is not something we take lightly.

That's an extraordinary amount of power you're putting in the hands of the government.

We've done it.

We did it to Huawei, right?

We did it to we don't let the we don't want Chinese telecommunication companies operating in the U.S.

because we know they pose a security risk.

Whether there's evidence they're doing it or not, the capability to do it is unacceptable.

So let me tell you what we know for a fact.

We know for a fact that China wants to become the world's most powerful country, and part of that strategy is to destroy America from the inside out, not just from the outside in, but from the inside out.

And part of that is narratives to distract us, you know, convince, put Americans to fight against each other.

We do a good enough job as it is because we're free people, but they would exacerbate that,

you know, spreading all kinds of disinformation to divide us against each other, but also to further Chinese objectives.

So, for example, convince us that it's a good thing that things are made in China because they're cheaper.

And so, you know, drive

those narratives and so forth.

So we know that for a fact.

We also know that TikTok, the app, okay, the issue is not the app.

The issue is not what people are saying on the app.

The issue is that that app...

And what drives the videos you see, what makes TikTok so successful, is the AI artificial intelligence algorithm that literally reads your mind.

The more more you use it, the more it learns what you like, the more it knows what you like before you even know you like it.

And so this is a very valuable algorithm.

That algorithm is not owned by TikTok.

That algorithm belongs to a company named ByteDance.

And ByteDance and all of their engineers are headquartered in China.

Like every company in China, They have to do whatever the government of China tells them to do.

It doesn't matter who's on their board.

It doesn't matter who the shareholders are.

China has a national security law that basically says straight out, if we tell you you have to do give us data, use your algorithm this way, you have to do it.

They don't have a choice.

Billionaire, Jack Ma, the richest man in China, tried to test one day and argued, well, you know, I'm Jack Ma.

I'm the richest person in China.

I'm allowed to have opinions.

He disappeared for 30 days.

He no longer lives in China.

And he was reminded.

that no.

So we know that they want to divide our country.

We know that they want to, and so and we know that a company that has to do whatever their government tells them to do controls an algorithm that, in a moment of crisis or leading up to a crisis, for example, could be weaponized against us very quickly by driving messages to convince us.

Call your member of Congress and tell them not to support tariffs because that means you're going to have to pay more for the clothes you buy, the cheap stuff you buy at Walmart or Amazon or even on Sheen or one of these Chinese websites and so forth.

Well,

look at what they did with the message of Osama bin Laden.

All of a sudden, out of nowhere, all of these videos appeared of all these kids, Americans, saying, you know, I just read Osama bin Laden's manifesto, and I think he was right.

You know, I think America, and, you know, they won't allow this exact device or algorithm in China on their own people.

They are using it against us already.

Right.

And so the, and the issue with that algorithm is not just that the video is there, but that the video is you're you're going to see it.

And then they know how to target it, right?

So they know who to target it at.

Yes.

So whatever the issue may be, it's a weapon.

I would say that we know that the Chinese, for example, want to hack our power plants.

And they work every single day to get accesses to our power plants.

They're not doing it.

They're not going to shut off our power today.

But we know that they're sitting there waiting to do it.

Just like...

they have missiles that are aimed at the United States.

They're not launching them, but they plan to if there's a war.

And so if we know that a threat exists, we have to address it.

And so the threat here is not TikTok per se, although that's what we call it because that's the company, that's the public, it's the algorithm.

And so what I believe, this is my goal, my goal is to ensure that no matter who owns that algorithm, it cannot be a company that is subject to the national security law of China.

And basically that's to do with the Chinese tell them.

It doesn't have to be owned by an American, doesn't have to be owned by someone we like, doesn't have to be owned by someone we agree with.

But that's my goal.

Now, some of the arguments that are used, can this, you know, if you write a law that way, or that's what the goal of the law is, then you can't weaponize that against, look, I have huge problems with the way Google operates.

They've discriminated against me, I believe, during my campaign.

I know they did.

I have huge problems with the concentration of power in the hands of big tech in America.

But the answer to that problem, which includes allowing us to be able to sue these companies because they have editorial control over stuff, they're not just the forum.

They control what messages get out, what messages don't.

They censor things like the New York Post story about Hunter Biden's laptop.

Okay, they should be able to be sued for that.

That's the answer to that problem.

But the answer to that problem is not to say, well, until we solve that, we can't deal with the fact that a foreign adversary, the most powerful foreign adversary we have ever faced in the case of China,

controls an algorithm that drives the fastest growing social media platform in America.

That's not the answer to the problem of Google and Facebook and Meta and all that stuff.

So the way the House bill is written,

the government could claim, the president could claim that Tucker Carlson

is publishing Russian propaganda.

And I heard people actually say this, that he was controlled by Russia.

I mean, the way the House bill is written, it leads me to believe that if you could get enough people to believe that in Washington, then

you could ban him as as an agent or being controlled by Russia.

Aaron Powell, let me say first and foremost that

I think this law will probably be amended or changed, and some of the things that people will look at are any potential vulnerabilities, because frankly, we now live in an era where we have to assume the worst.

No, we should have, but you have to assume the worst, that any word you write in legislation could be misused now or in the future.

So obviously, that's not the intent, and so that's the effort.

The second thing I would argue, and this is an important distinction, is we're not even saying that, we're not banning videos on TikTok that are pro-China people will continue to be able to put any post they want on TikTok that's not what the law would ban the what the law would ban is ownership of the algorithm by a company controlled by a foreign adversary meaning that the the algorithm is controlled by a foreign adversary so no matter who it is whether it's tucker anybody else they have a first amendment right to whatever opinion they have and people on people can continue to use TikTok.

You know, if ByteDance sells to somebody else, this law does not ban people people going on TikTok and saying, we think China is better than America.

We can criticize them for doing it.

That's what the First Amendment allows me to do in return.

But

it wouldn't ban pro-China messaging.

And the reason, again, it's the algorithm that we're aiming at here, not that.

And so the other thing is that the law, the way it's written, says it has to be domiciled.

It has to be domiciled.

The ownership is to be domiciled in a foreign country.

And not just a foreign country, but a foreign adversary.

But I'm more than happy to narrow this down to the Chinese, in essence, I'm more than happy to narrow this down to, say, companies subject to the national security law of the Communist Party of China.

I mean, because I think that's what I came to.

Yeah, I think that would be the most narrow that you can make it because I just don't want more power going to the government.

And you're right, they will find ways to use it against Americans.

I mean, look at CISA.

CISA is being used against us now.

And

they should be going after things like TikTok, et cetera, et cetera.

And instead,

they're operating

and gathering information on Americans.

That's not what we thought we were getting with CISA.

But just to tell you, laws on the books are weapons have not properly structured.

Look at the state of New York.

Look what a judge in New York is doing.

Yeah, I know.

Basically saying, if Donald Trump can't come up with $400 and something million dollars, you don't even have a right to appeal a decision I made.

This guy apparently now is a property appraiser.

You know, we began this interview by you talking about the price of property in Florida, you know, and this guy thinks Mar-a-Lago is only worth, you know, whatever, I don't know what, nine, ten million, whatever.

He said some ridiculous number.

But that's a law in New York, in the state of New York, that's being weaponized for political purposes.

We saw, you know, so I think that we live in this era where we realize that there are people whose hunger and thirst for power allows them to break every barrier, cross every guardrail that we've ever had in respect for our republic.

So So I have no problem with being as paranoid as possible on how we write this law.

But we have to deal with this issue of

this threat that we face from China because it is a real threat.

Their goal is to

destroy the United States

America.

Yeah.

So

since you brought up Donald Trump, there is a news story that broke today that you are on the very, very short list to be his running mate.

Is that true?

Do you know about it?

Would you want to be his running mate?

Well, first of all, let me tell you, anybody who gets a chance to serve as Vice President of the United States should consider that an honor.

I have never spoken either to President Trump or anybody on his campaign about this or anybody else that they're considering for vice president.

You know, the reason I'm in public service and the reason why I even ran for re-election, and it's a six-year contract you sign when you come here, is I still, I want to save this country.

I love this country with all my heart.

It changed the life of my family and the trajectory of my family.

I mean, I'm not saying that people whose families were born here don't love the country this well, but when your parents came from somewhere else, you realize that but for the grace of God and the existence of America, how different my life would have been.

And I think this country is in a lot, a lot of trouble.

I mean, not just bad policy decisions, but existential threats to our very nature as a republic and all the things that made America special.

And it's not just political, it's also cultural.

And so I have a lot of work.

work to do here in the Senate.

So, but like I said, I've never talked to them about it.

What I do know is that, unlike the Democrats, President Trump will have a lot of good options available to him, and I'm confident he's going to make the perfect and right choice.

Um, but I've never talked to them about it.

How concerned are you that this election

just doesn't end in madness?

I mean,

from either side, I don't know how you're going to, if it's close, I don't know how you're going to get either side to say, yep, that was fair.

Well, and I think you have to look at all of these other things that are being done.

I mean, we have people, Peter Navarro is going to jail.

I know.

But some gang member Venezuela is released on bond and may never even be charged, right?

That's what we have to now see is that this is not just a political talking point.

I mean, we have seen their hatred for Donald Trump, their hatred, okay, that's what this is.

It's hatred and derangement about Donald Trump has caused them to do things that stretch the bounds of anything anybody thought was possible.

I mean, if I had described to you four years ago and said, okay, they are going to, you know, a former president, leading candidate is going to face two federal indictments, including one in D.C., where there's no way you're going to get a jury that isn't going to be unfriendly to Donald Trump.

Plus, state prosecutors like one in Georgia, one in New York, are going to try to bankrupt him.

The other is going to try to put him in jail.

In addition to that, they're going to go after everyone that ever worked for him and try to bankrupt them.

If I just described these things, and plus, you're going to have supposedly serious people trying to actually remove him from the ballot, things that they're going to impeach him twice, including once after he's out of office.

You would have said that's not possible.

That's not going to happen.

I mean, that's too much even for them.

All of that has happened.

We're living all of that right now.

This is a derangement, and it causes derangement causes people to do things they wouldn't normally do, you would think.

But their thirst and lust for power allows them to justify anything they do.

And I think they don't like him because he is is pro-America.

You know, let's focus on America, America first.

And that can't be had by many people on the left and in the Democratic Party.

Mark O'Reilly, thank you very much.

Yeah, okay.

Next interview, I'll tell you why they really don't like him.

And because I think it's an important point.

Okay.

Well,

can you I'm out of time?

That worries me in 15 seconds.

What I would tell you is that we saw

the other day where he said that about the bloodbath.

They liked it when Republicans would use a term like that, which is not offensive in any way, and then the next day apologize and they would say, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say it that way.

I chose my words.

They liked those Republicans.

They don't like the Republican who says, no, I meant bloodbath.

Here's what it says in the dictionary.

And everyone knew clearly what I was saying.

And you guys are playing a game.

They hate that he does that.

They hate it.

Please come on again.

Marco Rubio, thank you very much.

Hey, thank you.

Love talking to you.

Bye-bye.

How does PWC take your company to the leading edge?

They bring the sharpest minds in tech to your team so you can bring the ideas that will transform your business.

They're passionate about your industry so you can walk into any room with every advantage.

And they're with you every step of the way so you can know you're headed in the right direction.

PWC builds for what's next so you can get there now.

Get started at pwc.com slash us slash leading edge.