Analyzing COVID Lockdown Media Failures with Drew Holden
51:03 Share

The 2022 political field was intense, so don't get left behind in 2024. If you're running for political office, the first thing on your to-do list needs to be securing your name on the web with a yourname.votewebdomain from godaddy.com. Get yours now.

Welcome to another episode of Breaking Battlegrounds with your host Sam Stone. Chuck Warren out of the studio today and on the road. So we have the lovely and talented Michelle Legente Rita in studio with us. Hi. And on the line, our first guest today, friend of the program, Drew Holden, writes about the media for The Free Beacon. You can also find his work in The New York Times, National Review, Washington Post, Fox News, and The Federalist. And he just did a great piece recently.

and apparently is going to be looking to do some more on this, which I think is desperately needed. Talking about the worst lockdown media coverage from those early days. Drew Holden, welcome to the program. Thank you so much for having me on, guys. I really appreciate it. It's great to be here. I think this is kind of an important thing for people to be putting out there,

right now because frankly the people who instigated the lockdowns are doing everything they can it's Michelle to me it's a really weird thing they want you to forget what they did right but at the same time they're they're holding like award ceremonies and patting each other on the back for what they did in selected groups but they know this is such an unpopular topic and I think anyone who went through it and experienced it and drew I don't know how you feel but

What gets reported and how it gets written about is not what people experienced when they had to live through it. I mean, it was just propaganda filled nonsense coming from the press as it related to the plandemic.

Yeah, and I think so much of what we see when we look back is there's a lot of revisionist history from the same outlets who are calling for lockdowns, who are advocating complete national shutdowns. I think some of them are a little bit more forthright about the things that they called for, but I think a lot of them are banking on you having forgotten the things that they said. And that's why I try and focus so much on the actual textual things that were written

you know, way back when.

What are some of the, for our listeners, what are some of the worst examples? The best worst examples. Yeah, there's a couple that come to mind. So I think the first that I think a lot of people probably remember is an Atlantic piece titled Georgia's Experiment and Human Sacrifice. There's a line that jumped out to, like, the headline is bad enough, right? But I want to read you guys a couple of lines from it. So Georgia's brash reopening. Mind you, this isn't,

15 days later. This is a month and a half later. They wrote, Georgia's brash reopening puts much of the state's working class in an impossible bind. Risk death at work or risk ruining yourself financially at home. It continues, Georgians are now largely the unwilling canaries in the invisible coal mine, sent to find out just how many individuals need to lose their job or their life for a state to work through a plague.

That's great. Now, immediately after that, as I understand it, Georgia had to build mass burial pits and funeral pyres for the millions and millions of dead that they generated from their actions. Right, right. Yeah. To hear the media tell it, you would think so, right? And I think one of the things that really gets lost from this conversation when it comes to the

kind of the revisionist retelling of everything that happened is that states like Georgia and Florida and Texas who opened sooner, they didn't experience these mass casualty events that they had been proclaiming. You know, I remember I looked at the deaths per 100,000 people in various states about a year after. So in early 2021. And one of the things that really jumped out to me was that the death totals per 100,000 people, 100,000 people in Florida were half the

the numbers in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Yes. Well past reopenings, right? All of these things that the media predicted would happen and all the policy changes that they called for as a result, none of it actually came to pass. It was all panic porn. It was completely invented. You know, I'm thinking, though, that because...

It's so obvious to me kind of what happened. I have a hard time believing that the media got it wrong, but that they purposefully utilized, you know, this technology.

COVID and weaponized it. They knew it wasn't as dangerous as they were making it seem, but it was just too good of an opportunity to put the screws to everybody. It is really all about control because you can't possibly have written what you had just wrote or read, excuse me,

And believe that with with with the circumstances that were unfolding, because there was nothing coming to fruition that back that up. Drew, did they really believe it? I think there are two groups. I think there's a group that is exactly what you just said, Michelle. But I think there's a group that bought into the panic.

I think that's right. Yeah. I mean, to me, you know, when I think of kind of the motivating animus behind all this, I think it is probably twofold. I think one part of it was there are a lot of reporters, there are a lot of interests, you know, going above reporters and editors, right? There are a lot of interests in journalism that do orbit around that mentality of control. And so I think it was a really rich opportunity regardless. But I also think it's worth pointing out that

a lot of the journalists who were writing these stories were earnestly scared. Like, these are the people who are probably still today wearing masks. And so I think because you have a corporate press that oversamples, I think, to a pretty considerable degree, to, like, the kind of neurotic, safety-focused media

sort of mentality that undergirded a lot of Democratic policies back then, it was easy for them to look at that and say, yeah, that's right. That's the way we ought to approach this thing. Drew, I sort of gave people a pass. I had a very interesting phone call at the time. I was still in Phoenix City Councilman Sal DeCiccio's office. I got a phone call from Lori Roberts, who was the lead columnist for the local paper. And she was panicked.

I mean, you could hear it in her voice. She was on edge, panicked. Now, this was fairly early. This was, you know, April of 2020. And I sort of gave that a pass. But within six months, there was real data to be had that, for instance, Governor DeSantis was operating on and other Republican governors were operating on that totally refuted this narrative. Why was it so hard for these folks who...

bought into this to give it up, to let it go. Yeah.

Yeah, you know, it's a really good point, Sam. I think for me, what I think that it comes down to is at that point in time, six, seven months in, there were so many people, particularly in the media, who were so convinced of the rightness of the arguments they had been making all along that the amount of evidence that it would take to even sway or shake that a little bit was overwhelming. There was no amount of detail there.

that we were going to get from studies or reports or, you know, the same experts the media relied on to call for shutdowns. I just, I think they were so embedded with this idea that Republicans are wrong to try and reopen and that all of these people who aren't as scared as we are, it's a moral failing.

that even as that data started to come out, and I wrote about it back in December of 2020 for The Times, about how we know these things. We know lockdowns are harmful. We know that they're bad. We know the virus isn't as bad as we thought it was initially. I don't think their ears were open to hear that.

Yeah, it's I guess the thing that struck me is most disingenuous about that at that point was that they were clearly also using it for politics for the election. Right. Yes, exactly. But at the same time, like you literally had, I think, right about that time period you're talking about, Michelle, if I remember correctly.

You had more than 50 percent of Democrats in a national poll who said people who weren't masking out in public should be arrested and taken to like camps. Well, yeah. And I but so the disingenuous part really is spot on. I don't know that my experience is.

Is that behind the scenes when out of the public view, even Democrats, liberals, I mean, they didn't really believe it. They didn't believe it the way they said they believed it. You were in office at that time, right? I was in office talking inches away from other Democrats as they pulled their mask off.

off of their face. And then when we go on the floor, when the camera was on, whoop, come back up again. I mean, that just tells me everything, you know, I need to know. But back to your point about weaponizing it. This is how they wanted to usher in vote by mail and a whole host of other policies not related to COVID, but just part of like an agenda of weaponizing this issue to get things across the

table that otherwise people would not support. Drew, we have, I think, about four minutes, three and a half minutes left in this segment. Which...

If you had to say which outlet was the worst, which one was the most ridiculous about this? That's a really good question. You know, part of me, I give the Atlantic a bit of a pass, I think, because all of their writing is kind of imbued with a sort of opinionated perspective. Yeah, they're nuts about everything. So there's some consistency there. Yeah.

Exactly right. Right. Yeah. Wrong direction, but definitely consistent. I got to be honest. I think the worst coverage that I saw was from CNN. There were there are two pieces that jump out. So the first one was early on in the pandemic.

This is when you started to see protests in Wisconsin and in Michigan where people were calling to open up states. And again, this isn't – let's go fully back to the way we were pre-pandemic. It was I want to go to work. I want to go to the store. And CNN really – I want to go to the park.

Yeah, exactly. Right. I want to go outside and allow my kid to play on a swing set. And CNN wrote a piece about the dangerous philosophy behind the open it up movement, where they talked about how it was like an ends justify the means utilitarianism that was driving people, which is just so... And this wasn't an opinion piece. This is straight news reporting. And it was just so bonkers to me. Amid...

obviously a universe of just really, really bad coverage. It was so insane that they would stretch that far to invent a morality behind a movement, a movement, in air quotes, they don't like, when it's just people trying to get out of their houses.

Right. And so that that was one example that jumps out to me. And the other one for CNN was, you know, back when we were trying to get kids back into schools, which was the right approach all along. CNN had a had a piece asking the question, is it safe to send your kids back to school? And then the second line of the title was these studies suggest it isn't like they cherry pick like three studies to say, oh, we're not really sure yet.

And then and then scared all of these parents, right, like probably well-meaning, confused people who are reading this and saying, oh, well, you know, I just saw on the news that this isn't actually safe. And they're hiding behind these headlines to push an editorial narrative that was just unmoored from reality.

Couldn't have done it without complicit Republicans, though. There was a lot of hands in that pot. Yeah. I mean, it's one of those. We only have about a minute left here, so I don't want to get into something a little too deep. But I actually always thought that they took great advantage of Donald Trump's. He has always been great.

very, very nervous about bacteria and viruses. Oh, uh-huh. And I... A germaphobe? Yeah, he's a big time germaphobe. A long time for a germaphobe president. Yes. Yeah, it was the worst time for that. Yeah. And I thought they made use of that in unfortunate ways, especially early. Yeah.

We're going to be coming right back here with more from Drew Holden in just a minute, folks. Make sure you check out our podcast. We always have a nice podcast segment for our online listeners. You can find us on Substack, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, everywhere you get your favorite podcasts. You can find Breaking Battlegrounds. We're also at BreakingBattlegrounds.vote. We'll be coming right back.

At Overstock, we know home is a pretty important place, and that's why we believe everyone deserves a home that makes them happy. Whether you're furnishing a new house or apartment or simply looking to update and refresh a few rooms, Overstock has everyday free shipping and amazing deals on the beautiful, high-quality furniture and decor you need to transform any home into the home of your dreams. Overstock, making dream homes come true.

All right. Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Sam Stone, and guest host today, Michelle Argenti-Rita. On the line with us, Drew Holden of The Free Beacon. But before we get into that, folks, if you haven't been to the website for Invest With Why Refi, you need to go there right now. Very simple. Invest, the letter Y, then refy.com. Learn how you can earn up to a 10.25%.

fixed rate of return on your money. It is in a secure, collateralized portfolio. And when you invest with YRefi, you're actually helping students pay off their high-interest student loans. You're helping them get their lives on track, and you're making great money while you do it. It's a fantastic opportunity. Give them a call, 888-YRefi24, and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you, or go to that website, invest, the letter Y, then refy.com.

OK, continuing on with Drew Holden. Drew, you've got some other pieces up recently. Media meltdown after liberal Supreme Court justices rule for Trump. That's been one of the one of the more entertaining things recently. Tell us a little bit about that and what the response has been.

Yeah, it has been. You know, so I wrote this piece about how the Supreme Court ruled nine to nothing that the state of Colorado was wrong to kick Trump off the ballot. They had, you know, you had a very, very liberal state Supreme Court that had said he had violated the Insurrection Act. Well, and actually, if I can stop you on that, what I found interesting about that decision in the Colorado case was that

The Colorado court was split exactly along the lines of those who went to the Ivy Leagues versus those who went to Denver Law. Oh, that's a great observation. The Denver Law folks, none of them voted to kick him off the ballot. Every one of the Ivies did. That's good. I mean, I didn't even realize that. That's that's really good.

But anyway, sorry to cut you off there, but please continue. No, you're fine. I think that's definitely indicative of a valuable product trend. But so, you know, a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled nine to nothing that Colorado couldn't kick Trump off the ballot. And, you know, it was interesting because leading up to that, you had a lot of alleged court watchers and legal experts who had said, yeah, you know, this is a strong case. It's, you know, they here's why Colorado was right to kick him off.

And then you saw even the most progressive justices on the Supreme Court appointed by Democrats who ruled alongside Republicans and say, yeah, no, the state of Colorado is wrong to have done this. And you saw within the media, right, my beat, my focus, you saw at the drop of a hat the change from the media having previously built up these three justices as the women who are saving democracy before they –

came out with the ruling. And then as soon as they agreed with the conservatives, they threw them absolutely to the wolves, right? They're part of this bad, evil, broken system, the same way all the other justices they don't like are. I loved that you heard a bunch of people right after that call for packing the court, because I'm like, exactly how many do you think you're going to have to pack to get a majority ruling in your favor on this? Yeah.

Right. And it's interesting, too, because like even a packed Supreme Court, it stands to reason, would have ruled the same way this evil one did. Right. And for a long time, the press had talked about how the Supreme Court was evil because of what Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump had done to to get conservatives on the bench.

And now they had to kind of refocus that argumentation to say, well, maybe this institution is actually evil and broken and has been all along. And it's like, okay, guys, come on. It's like not everything orbits around Trump. And I think to me the big takeaway was once again you have the media looking at an issue that's

through being the Supreme Court and its viability and legitimacy and institutional heft and everything else, as only through the microcosm of is it good for Donald Trump or if it's bad? And if bad, the institution is rotten. One of the things, and I'm not sure if this was in the ruling or not or if I got the information right, but

I think it was like Sonia Sotomayor who even noted that there was no actual insurrection, that you couldn't claim that because no one had been convicted of insurrection. Right.

Yeah, you're right. And your details are right. It was Sotomayor who had come out with that. And again, like there was there was so much buildup up to that point that hung the hopes on even if the Supreme Court does throw this ruling out, at least our justices who have been so great for the progressive movement all along will stand up for this thing. And even they looked at it and they and they kind of balked. Right. And they were like, this is it.

And not only is this finding preposterous, but the thing that you are saying exists, we don't have evidence to say does. One of the things that I sort of found interesting was Jenna Griswold, the Colorado secretary of state who initiated this action. I mean, she came out immediately afterwards and basically declared herself a superior legal expert to the nine Supremes.

On MSNBC, mind you. Because, of course, where else would she go? And you're right. I think that's what you saw. And it wasn't even just her, right? Like Lawrence Tribe, the media's go-to liberal media air quotes expert, said the same thing. And then he had a bunch of interviews on MSNBC and then a big long piece, and you guessed it, The Atlantic, about how the Supreme Court was wrong. And it's like it would be one thing to say I –

legal scholar and smarter than person X. But to say I am more knowledgeable of the law of the land than all nine of the Supreme Court members is a pretty strong statement to make from anyone. Is that the Hubris Award winner of the year comment right there? I mean...

It's got to be, right? And it's always stiff competition when you get not just the media voices, but I think the people who the media relies on as experts. When you get them weighing in on anything, the hubristic side of it comes out quite quickly. But this one, for a 9-0 ruling, it's got to be. It's got to be the benchmark to beat. It's early in the year. Blinded by so much hatred of Donald Trump. Yeah.

Sometimes I think I understand the level and then something like this blows that out of the water.

Yeah, you know, I think that's a really good point. And again, it's like they hate him so much and so centrally that it becomes their North Star, right? Nothing else matters. The court's decision doesn't matter. The rulings on the book don't matter. Everything, the entire institution of the Supreme Court doesn't matter. What matters is are you aiding Donald Trump? Right.

Yeah, exactly. It's preposterous, right? And it's the sort of thing that I think to people who are observing it, it's gotten obvious. I really think that a lot of these people in the media are so rabid that they don't see it.

Rabbit and bubbled, right? They're trapped in this bubble. It's one of the things I keep talking about. There's half of the country that doesn't know a third or more of the news that's actually happening today. But it's become this litmus test. Yeah. Folks, we have just about a minute and a half here left. Drew, how do folks follow you and all the work you're doing?

Yeah, I appreciate that, Sam. So the best way, at least for now, is on Twitter. I'm at Drew Holden 360. That's where you'll find all my writing. That's where you'll find all my threads. You know, sometimes I'll write up a piece. Sometimes I just do the thread. And so that's the best place to follow me for now. Fantastic. Thank you so much, Drew. We really appreciate having you. Always look forward to having you back again in the future to talk about some more of this stuff.

Again, thank you for taking the time. Pleasure is mine. Thank you guys for having me on.

So, Michelle, we've got about 30 seconds here left. I do have to let folks know you have to go. You have an obligation you can't avoid. Right. I tried, but I am going to have to leave you solo. Uh-oh. Uh-oh. Yeah, flying solo. Okay. But you know what? No worries, folks. We're going to have next up a lady named Kim George. She's running for Congress here in Arizona. Yeah.

which is interesting, but more interesting. She's 23 years in the FBI. And I want to get into that, especially with whatever, everything that's going on right now. So stay tuned for that. Breaking battlegrounds. We'll be back in just a moment. Welcome back to breaking battlegrounds. I'm your host, Sam Stone. And I just lied to you.

We tricked you. I'm here. So right after we closed the mic, we were talking about the previous guest, Drew Holden, and the response to COVID. Michelle, of course, was in the Arizona legislature at that time. And I thought you made a great point. We're going to keep you around for the six-minute segment, so we're going to make you close on your next appointment. That's all right. I've got a few minutes. But go ahead and say what you were telling me in the break here. Well, the thing that

Came to my mind listening to Drew is how do you think COVID is going to be written about, not in the media, but in our children's textbooks? It's going to be a disaster. It's going to be the left narrative disaster.

100%. I tell this to people all the time. They don't understand the school choice movement is great. I'm a huge supporter of school choice. You can create a great school with a great principal, great teachers, and a great foundation, but you have to use textbooks. And there are literally like two and a half textbook companies in the United States, and they are lefty to the core. Right. And think about how much power they have. I mean, I know what happened because I lived it as a mom, as a citizen, as an elected official.

But in 20 years, you know, 30 years, there are going to be people that rely on and will be information what they read and will be taught a narrative. And I fear that what's going to happen is they're going to.

soft play it. They're going to be taught the spin. The spin, exactly. They're going to make it look like everybody bought into it. Everybody was on board. Everybody believed taking away personal liberty, shutting down businesses, masking everybody up, keeping playgrounds. Because for the record, you were very clear right from the start. You looked at the data. You said this is not what people are telling us.

On day seven of our, you know, 14-day stay home and safe or whatever that... That ended up being much longer. Much longer and a joke. I knew it was BS. I was on text change with...

text chains with other members. Everybody thought this was a crock. Nobody really believed the veracity of what the media was saying. It's not that they didn't believe COVID, but the way it was being characterized and the justification around COVID

putting you in your home, keeping kids out of school, feeding off of your fear and your health, saying if you go outside, you could die. And those textbooks are going to make it seem like, I think, that everybody believed that. And that's just not true. Millions of people did not believe that and immediately knew something was up. I think it's going to be worse. What they're going to say is that this was the real science that most people believed.

But these Republican, reckless Republicans who didn't care about people put people at risk and got them killed. Right. And what you just heard from Drew is that that's garbage. That entire narrative is garbage. It's false. And, you know, people couldn't go see their dying loved ones in a hospital, couldn't go to funerals. What happened was sickening. And you made a good point, you know, about giving people some deference in terms of how they responded. Right.

But let's separate that out from the elected officials, the governors, the unelected bureaucrats. Who had a responsibility to get it right. Correct. That's different than even, to me, someone in the media. Yeah, it is different. There's a different level. I agree.

You said you were a leader. You said that you were capable and meant for these kind of times. And then we had a challenge and you buckled and you caved and you sold your constituency out and made them lose their livelihoods and injected their children with fear and pain.

panic and anxiety and suicidal thoughts, there should be accountability for what these people did. People need to be held accountable for what they did to American citizens. And we haven't even gotten to that level yet. That's how much I... It is. The story isn't done. And, you know, look, I, as folks know, work with Kerry Lake. I'm a supporter of Donald Trump. But the one... And I think if I look at any nine, any 10 things he's done, I agree with nine, sometimes 10. Yeah.

But this is one I felt, like I said in the previous segment, I think they used his germophobia. Yeah. I think Fauci knew what he had was a target that he could manipulate that way. Look at what they did to him. They made him like a god. Yeah. And he is, you know, the history of him, a lot of people did not realize. But for me, I was a teenager during the AIDS crisis. And I remember that.

Yeah. And that will probably end up, you know, and so you can imagine how bought in they are in safeguarding that narrative. And that's going to come out and you'll see that.

In these textbooks. It's going to be baked into the text. You're seeing it already with the way they're rejiggering history. This is what Drew was saying. Exactly. Revisionist history. All right, folks. So now, actually, truly, Michelle will not be joining us for the next segment. Well, who knows? I may be back. No, I'm joking. She has to run out of here. But thank you again for staying for that. Absolutely. Because I think that was an important point to make. Yes. And you as an elected official who was in office at that time got to see it up close. Yes.

The hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is exactly right. Awful. Folks, Breaking Battlegrounds coming back in just a moment.

At Overstock, we know home is a pretty important place, and that's why we believe everyone deserves a home that makes them happy. Whether you're furnishing a new house or apartment or simply looking to update and refresh a few rooms, Overstock has everyday free shipping and amazing deals on the beautiful, high-quality furniture and decor you need to transform any home into the home of your dreams. Overstock, making dream homes come true.

Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds. Folks, if you haven't been to the website for investwirefy.com, why haven't you been there? You can earn up to a 10.25% fixed rate of return. That's right, up to 10.25% fixed in a secure collateralized portfolio. And when you invest with Wirefy, you're doing well for yourself by doing good for others. You're doing well for yourself by doing good for others.

You get that fantastic rate while you're helping college students pay off their high-interest student loans and get their lives on track. It's a fantastic program, fantastic opportunity. Check them out. Invest the letter Y, then refy.com, or give them a call at 888-Y-REFI-24.

I want to thank our previous guest, Drew Holden. He was fantastic. And Michelle Legente-Rita, as always, for joining us as our guest host. As we know, she had to run, but we have a guest I'm very excited to talk to today. And full disclosure, someone I am working with on her campaign. Kim George is a retired FBI special agent with over two decades of experience in law enforcement and running for Congress in Arizona's 1st Congressional District. Kim, welcome to the program. Great to be here. So...

Congressional races are always interesting, but let's be honest, the FBI is more interesting. So let's start there. How'd you become an FBI agent? What was your path to do that?

Yeah, it was kind of a wasn't a clear path. I didn't I like to say I didn't roll over in the crib and want to grow up to be an FBI agent. So you didn't have an FBI badge hanging above the crib like the little spinner thing? No, I didn't. It just, you know, although when I talk to people I went to college with, they they say, oh, no, you talked about going into the FBI. I've forgotten that. But no, I was I was a pre-med major. I forgot a lot that I learned in college, but that might have something to do with going to school in Oregon with great beer.

I can understand that. So I was pre-med, pre-med major, always wanted to be a doctor. And I lost my father in a car accident my freshman year and kind of just, you know, lost track and wasn't the best student at the time. And I changed to broadcast journalism and got into thought I would go, you know, into the media work, maybe on air anchor or something like that.

and got a major, broadcast journalism marketing, and got out and didn't like it. Worked at a radio and TV station, which that's probably not proper protocol here on the radio, but it just wasn't for me. I knew that. Well, look, I think most of us looking at the media landscape today can understand why you would want to leave that pit of vipers behind and go arrest some honest criminals. Yeah.

Yeah. Well, yes. I mean, it just – and so it's just one thing led to another. And a good friend of mine graduated from law school and wanted to go to all the federal agencies. I was her chauffeur. I drove her around. We walked into the FBI office. He gave her an application. He said, hey, what about you? I said, oh, I'll take one. Held on to it for a few years, sent it in, and that was history. Interesting.

And so you actually started, ended up starting out working for them in the mailroom. That's right. Yes. And then you worked your way up from there, passed the test to go get field training, become an agent, do all that kind of thing, right? That's correct. I think that's unusual. Is that an unusual path? It is. There's a few. You know, when I applied, they told me I didn't have enough work experience. You needed three consecutive years, one employer. And I had resigned my job just shy of that three years. And so...

So I was blessed. They called me one morning and said, hey, would you be interested in coming in as a professional support employee? And luckily, I was smart enough at the time to take advantage of that. And it was good because it taught me what the other side, you know, the Bureau has two types of employees, the professional support employees and special agents. And they can't exist without the other. One can't exist without the other. So it really gave me a good base, a good foundation for what I did next.

I think people don't realize stuff like the FBI or, for instance, in the military, like a fighter pilot, right? Tom Cruise can fly the plane, but you literally need like 100 people around him to make that plane work. Exactly. And the FBI, to some extent, is the same way, right? It's exactly the same way. You have to have a huge support network to back up these investigations. Right. It's not like in television and the movies, nothing happens with the snap of a finger in five seconds. Right.

You mean you don't close the case in 42 minutes with commercial breaks? That would be – that would have been great. No, just the opposite. And you're right. There are hands from the mailroom up that really help get things done. What is the worst criminal you snap the cuffs on? Who's the one that you're like, I can – I am so thankful we got that one off the street? Well, you know –

this memory is terrible and great at the same time. I was the supervisor of a crimes against children squad and we investigated any crime against a child, child sex trafficking, you know, child pornography, parental kidnapping across state lines. And we had an investigation where a nurse, a male nurse was fostering a child. He was a foster parent. He was at the time he was fostering a six month old baby.

And I was asked to go out on scene for the search warrant of this individual's home because we had reasonably, we had probable cause that he was trading in child pornography across state lines with other individuals. That's a federal crime. So I was on scene with the agents and just to monitor. And if anything happened, I was, you know, the on scene commander and the agents were

Had his phone and, you know, were going through it. And as we spoke, they found evidence of child pornography of him molesting that baby on his cell phone. A six-month-old. A six-month-old baby, yes. Oh, my God. I stood there and watched those agents say, turn around, put your hands behind your back.

They put the cuffs on him. I got the baby. And of course, you know, we had to process and got the baby into safe hands. But it was the worst moment, but the best moment. I was so proud of the agents for the work they had done. And we got someone off the street that

should have never been in that position in the first place. How long does it take to take a case like that from the point it opens to, okay, we've got this guy, he's been convicted, he's going to jail? You know, it just depends. But luckily in those cases, we move as fast as possible. And those agents that had that case, and they were working with, you know, if

FBI has 56 field offices across the United States, and they were working in cooperation with other field offices because, like I said, this man was trading this pornography, this molesting of the child, with others across the country. And so it was a little more complicated, but I believe that case probably we wrapped it up in three months.

because obviously you want to work as fast as possible. Right, right. But you need to make sure that what you think you have is solid and you have to go through the legal process and that, like I said, obtaining a search warrant, signed by a judge. So it's a process. You short-circuit anything, there's a good chance this guy gets off. That's exactly right, 100%. Okay. So talking, obviously, how long did you serve in the FBI? 23 years. 23 years. And you were a special agent for...

I was a special agent and a supervisory special agent. Supervisory special agent, did sex crimes task force work. What other type of work did you do? Well, I did criminal work for half my career, counterintelligence for the other half. So in the criminal side, besides the crimes against children, I worked organized crime for nine years. And really, in organized crime, it's two or more individuals involved in a pattern of racketeering of criminal activity, so it could be anything. So I worked money laundering investigations, etc.

You know, you name it, drug trafficking, human trafficking. In addition to that, I worked public corruption. And so I investigated corrupt officials, you know, local, state, federal, also prison corruption. So again, you're running for Congress, so I'm taking it. You're going to be filling out your treasurer's report very carefully. That's right. You better believe it. Because there are people like you out there pursuing this.

So that's one of the things I want to get into here because I think on our – Republicans have maybe been a little bit unfair about the FBI. They're right about the leadership. They're right about particularly the DOJ leadership. But the folks working in all those field – 56 field offices across the country, they're not political. Right.

Well, no. As a matter of fact, you're not allowed to be. Although I have to be honest, I have been hearing from agents that are very happy I'm doing this because they want me to be a voice for them. Because this is now filtering into them. Exactly. Exactly. And I'm getting contacted and it's wonderful. Not just FBI, but DHS, Secret Service, other agencies. But

You know, there has been a trend. There's been a change. And I'm hearing now that they are talking openly in the field offices about politics, which was an absolute no-no. I mean, we were under the Hatch Act. It's very strict. You know, in election season, you get special training from your CDC, your chief division counsel. So we know what you can and can't do. And it was just...

You know, you can't have any bias in the FBI in your investigations. It has to be literally you're looking at the facts, the data. And so, no, we didn't talk openly. That was something, you know, I would if a Republican Democrat, it doesn't matter. It's, you know, are you breaking the law? It's about the rule of law and justice. I have always said, and tell me if you agree or disagree with this, that these folks who are running around like,

with these cashless bail and letting catch and release and all this kind of thing. Fundamentally, I would respect them far more if their intent was to change the law to remove some laws that people are being arrested for. Right. Because then you're still enforcing the rule of law, which is fundamentally more important than any individual law itself. Right. That's one of the reasons why I'm doing this is because I'm fed up with –

us not enforcing the laws that are on the books. We've got laws on the books for a reason, and we're not enforcing them. And it's very frustrating to see, you know, and that's the border. I mean, it's across the border. And you worked a lot of crimes that dealt with cross-border traffic. Yes.

And so you know that we have plenty of laws on the books that could be used to address these issues. We absolutely do. We do. And there's a process. There's an asylum process. You know, you claim asylum in the first country you enter after leaving your country. That's just being completely disregarded. And that's, of course, that's a...

a higher level, bigger picture. That's not the FBI's role or responsibility. But it's just frustrating for current and retired law enforcement officers to see this complete just disregard. To me, it's indicative of the left's attempts to break down the rule of law in every area. You see this in our cities. You see this with the drug, you know, drug stuff where on one hand they're legalizing it or decriminalizing it. And at the end of the day,

How critical is it for us or for the next representative from this district to be able to very clearly say, listen, the law is the law, that we're going to – part of our effort in Congress has to be to get federal agencies, prosecutors, so forth, focused on following the book?

It's very important. It's critical. I mean, our national security, which I've been talking about for months now, and it's been the focus of my career for the past few decades, we're in dire straits. And it's not just the border. It's our economy. It's our infrastructure, which has been failing for decades now.

You know, it's it's allowing this bridge that just collapsed. It's terrible. People knew it was risk. It was risky that the pylons were not up to modern standards that could have survived an impact. We had Biden's build back broker act, which, you know, was spending a trillion dollars, whatever.

What we got, like here in Phoenix where our studio is, you have a bridge over a dry riverbed in downtown Phoenix right next to a roadway bridge that has pedestrian walkways. So you got a pedestrian bridge to nowhere. Right.

Right.

We need transparency. And when people have issues and they bring them forward, they deserve they have the right to be heard. And there are cases all across this country. There's one at the Supreme Court right now. And we need people in Congress that are willing and brave and bold enough to stand up and say, listen, I want to hear what you have to say.

You know, it's also frustrating for me to hear these hearings and hear congressmen and women who quite honestly don't know what they're talking about questioning the witnesses. I mean, I think we heard that last week with the RICO comment. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Ocasio-Cortez did not understand RICO is a law.

Yeah, no, she didn't. And there's a reason for that. Again, that's why you need people in Congress with the experience that know what they're talking about and can be those people to ask those very questions. And that's why it's one of the reasons, folks, that I'm working with Kim and I'm encouraging, obviously, people to support her is because the intent of the founders was to have people with real expertise in a wide variety of areas, right?

And this is one where you don't have people with your expertise in Congress. Well, hopefully we will soon. Yeah, absolutely. How do folks get up, follow your campaign and hopefully be able to support you? KimGeorgeForArizona.com. And you can also find me on X at Kim George for Arizona. Fantastic, folks. If you want to hear a little more, we're going to have Kim back for our podcast segment coming up here in just a moment. Talk a little bit about that race because she's got a tough race. So, Kim.

Check her out, help her out if you can. Breaking Battlegrounds will be back on the air next week. And as always, if you're not already a subscriber to our podcast, come on, people. It just takes one click. Then you get all our episodes, all our shows, including the podcast segment, right in your email. Breaking Battlegrounds, back next week.

The 2022 political field was intense, so don't get left behind in 2024. If you're running for political office, the first thing on your to-do list needs to be securing your name on the web with a yourname.votewebdomain from godaddy.com. Get yours now. Welcome back to the podcast segment of Breaking Battlegrounds. We're continuing on with Kim George. She's running for Congress in Arizona's first congressional district. Now, Kim,

You're running in a race. Some people have questioned why you would be in it. I'm just going to be honest because we've got a Republican incumbent, David Schweikert. He's been on the program with us before. But let's be honest. This is a Republican-leaning district. It's a light red. And he had a...

Way lefty opponent, a guy named Javon Hodge, who actually just got tossed out of the Arizona legislature for sexual crimes or, you know, alleged at least. And he barely beat him. I mean, it was tight. Now he's got a much tougher opponent or you do in a woman named Marlene Galen Woods, who is the ex-wife of our former attorney general and who has experience as a TV reporter and all that. So.

Probably a better fit from a Democrat perspective for that district. A lot of people questioning whether Congressman Schweiker can hold on and whether he should. Those are both. So tell us, why did you get into this race and why do you think you can you can win it?

Well, I got into this race because it's time for a change. And I've been knocking on doors, you know, talking to people in living rooms, backyards, and I'm hearing it over and over again. You know, this is not personal. I thank the Congressman for his service, but it is time for a change and people want a change. I'm hearing it over and over again. They want someone who's around all the time, not just during campaign season. And that's the kind of leader that I plan to be.

So for folks who don't know, obviously, this district that Schweikert is in, he won by a very significant margin 10, 12 years ago when he first got in office, I guess 14 years ago now. Been a while. But those margins keep getting narrower and narrower.

That's right. In 2018, the margin was less than 10 percent. In 2020, it was less than five. And like you said, in 2022, it was less than one percent. So, you know, again, I think we see a trend here. And you mentioned Marlene Galen Woods, if she is the candidate. And they have a primary, which is unusual for Democrats, quite frankly. Yeah.

They have a pretty long list as well. But if she is the candidate, who better to talk about the issues that we know the Democrats are going to bring than a woman? We know what their number one issue is. It's abortion. It's women's health issues, women's rights. Who better to have that conversation, that debate, than me? I actually, for folks who are signed up for our sub-stack,

I had a piece come out today basically talking about how Democrats are campaigning on only two things, abortion and hiding their positions on everything else. So that's the second plank of their campaign is just to pretend that everything else they stand for doesn't exist. Right, right, right. So with Schweiker, one of the things, you know, at the end of the day, we've had him on this program. He's a budget hawk. He's focused on this stuff.

But he hasn't built the consensus to actually get anything done. That's what I hear. How do you do that? Well, that's what I've done my entire career, and that's who I am. I can get along with people that I don't agree with, agree to disagree, kind of like the Reagan and Tip O'Neill days. That's what we need to get back to. Because you did – so this is actually where I think this kind of – there's an odd sort of connectivity here. You've done a lot of undercover work. Yes. Where you have to at least –

be able to work with people that you do not like at all. That's right.

That's right. And you have to be able to still move forward and achieve your objectives. Exactly. You have to accomplish your mission and kind of put everything aside and do your job. And that's what I will do in Congress. We watch these folks, you know, when they do their hearings and their interviews, and all they do is pontificate, attack each other. They are not talking about what they're there for, the people, our issues. We need people in Congress that can do that.

But I have a heart to serve. And I thought it was done after I retired, after 23 years of service. It's a long time serving the country. It's a long time. I went into the corporate sector after that for five years in two Fortune 500 companies. Doing security, high-level security work. Yes, economic espionage, IP theft. And that was great. But last year I said, you know what?

I'm done with that. I want to serve again. We only have a couple of moments here. We're recording a day early because of Good Friday. Obviously, this is a Christian network. So the studio is closed on a normal recording day. We're a little tighter scheduled than normal. So folks, I apologize for a short segment. But I want to touch on what you were just talking about there. One of the things that I think we are lacking in Congress, when you look at it,

is an understanding of the danger of China's unrelenting efforts to steal intellectual property and American technological secrets. Right. So if you go to Congress, how much can you have an impact on bringing attention to that issue? Well, I'll bring my experience to the table, my contacts.

People that, like I said, people in law enforcement, in the intelligence community that want more done. Under the Trump administration, he gave us the freedom to actually investigate and to arrest these folks and to go after them.

He wasn't playing political games with investigations. And that's what's happening. That's what we're seeing right now. And I don't know that the public really understands that, but that is what's happening. So what will I bring? I will, you know, all my experience to the table. And I know what, you know, counterproliferation is a very significant issue. And that's what the Chinese are very, very good at it. And we may well have and appear to have a compromised president.

Well, I'd like to be part of the... The unwindings, figure that out. I think that's a great plan. Kim George, thank you so much for joining us today. Folks, check out her website, kimgeorgeforarizona.com. You can follow her on X, Twitter, all that kind of good stuff. Thank you so much, Kim, for taking the time this morning. We appreciate having you. All right, folks, Breaking Battlegrounds. We'll be back next week.