Transcribe your podcast

We just talked about Senator Campbell Harris. So far, she's gotten a free pass from the press on her presidential run. They want her to be the next president. So they are overlooking her background. She is a former prosecutor, as you know. But the press let her rebrand as a crusader for prison reform. No one's Calderon it until last night. Congressman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii definitely called her on it. Watch this. There are too many examples to cite, but she put over fifteen hundred people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.


She blocked evidence, evidence that would have freedom, an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so.


She kept people in prison be on their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California. There is no excuse for that. And the people who suffered under your reign as prosecutor. Oh, you owe them an apology.


It was an electric moment. It might be why Congresswoman Gabbard was the most Googled candidate since the debate last night. She joins us tonight. Congressman, thanks a lot for coming on.


Thanks. So I haven't heard anybody say what you said. Why? Why are you the first person to say this?


Look, voters deserve to know the truth. You know, the decision that the American people have before them is a critical one. The decision that Democrats have before them about who their nominee should be is a very important one. They deserve to know the truth about the candidates that are before them, and especially on this issue of criminal justice reform that's impacting so many people across this country because it is so broken and it is an unjust criminal justice system. Senator Kamala Harris is in a position to be able to make a difference in that when she was serving as attorney general.


And as I pointed out last night, she did not fulfill that promise that she claims to have, which is to be a champion for the people, be a champion for the oppressed. In fact, she did the exact opposite. She made decisions that ended up hurting people, that ended up hurting minorities, hurting poor people in the state of California, which is concerning to me for someone who wants to be the president, United States and frankly, who's claiming to be a prosecutor president.


So I think this is a really interesting debate. This topic deserves a real debate. You have a perspective. She's got a perspective. Let's hear them both. She would not engage with you. And that's what I found contemptible, but also fascinating rather than rebut what you said. She dismissed you and her spokesman later dismissed you even more savagely as a Putin apologist. What do you make of that? You know, a couple of things. First of all, what I was sharing was not a matter of opinion.


These are widely reported facts and reports about her tenure as attorney general in California. Her career as a prosecutor. And we're not talking about something that happened, you know, 30 years ago or 50 years ago. This is these are things that she did in her last job just before she was elected as U.S. senator. And she should be held to account for them. She's claimed to be very proud of this record. So answer for it. The voters deserve to know.


But you're right. She refused to answer the question. She refused to engage on the debate stage. And the responses from her and her campaign after the debate was basically to lob cheap smears and basically say that I'm a traitor or a foreign agent or a Trojan horse or whatever it was in trying to feed those talking points to the media. So, you know, this is concerning on many levels about how a Senator Harris would govern as president, that if there are those who are critics of her or her record, you know, for me, I'm a two time veteran of Middle East deployments.


I'm a soldier currently still serving in the Army. I'm a sitting member of Congress. And she's smearing me in this way. Imagine what she would do to anyone else.


You know, as as president, it gets I think it's a fair point. That's a fair point. It's it's it's it's the first refuge of of of the contemptible, I think. What do you think of CNN debate? The way that they they ran it. Were you satisfied with it? I think it had a little more decorum than we saw in the first debate. But, you know, look, I wish there was a more fair and balanced approach in how every candidate would have the right amount of time to be able to address these important issues that we face.


There are many of them. Sixty seconds and 30 seconds. There are short periods of time to be able to dig into these issues. So this is where I'm looking forward to being able to continue to build the support for our campaign to make it to the qualifications for the next debates in September and October. Yeah, I mean, the one place you don't want to be in Washington is outside the status quo as you are. That's when you start getting it from all sides.


This is obviously Tucker. Tucker, this is this, you know, a lot a lot of the conversation around this and the things that we're talking about, again, really come down to valuing this role, this job of president and that most responsibility of commander in chief and appreciating the freedoms that we hold dear in this country. You know, if if I have the honor and privilege of serving as president, I can guarantee you that if there are critics to my record or people who disagree with my policies, I'm not going to to label them as as foreign agents or traitors.


Having this vigorous debate is a part of who we are as a country. And it's something that we've got to appreciate and actually honor the voters and the people of this country and making sure that we're providing them with the truth and the information that they need to make the best decision possible. A man, Tulsi Gabbard, thanks a lot for coming on tonight. Thank you.