Connect with us

International

A billion views: Donald Trump tells Elon Musk Kamala Harris is a radical ‘San Francisco liberal’

Published

1 year ago

9 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Matt Lamb

“I think a lot of people thought, you know, that the Biden administration would be a moderate administration, but it’s not,” he said.

He said Kamala Harris will move even “further left” than Biden.

“I mean, her dad is literally… a Marxist economist”

A much publicized recorded conversation between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump has generated 1 billion views, according to the former.

Musk, who owns X (formerly Twitter), spoke with Trump for nearly two hours last night on the social media platform. The conversation was delayed by a “massive distributed denial of service attack,” Musk said. The hackers’ attack showed “there’s a lot of opposition to people just hearing what President Trump has to say.”

The European Union also sent a letter to Musk warning him that he had obligations to avoid posting “harmful content” that would “generate detrimental effects on civic discourse.”

Meanwhile, the Tesla CEO said Trump must win “for the good of the country.”

The pair talked about illegal immigration, the economy under Trump, the recent assassination attempt upon the former president, and crime.

Musk said he has “historically” been a “moderate Democrat” and explained why he is backing Trump in the 2024 presidential election.

“I feel like we’re really at a critical juncture for the country,” he said during the conversation. “I think a lot of people thought, you know, that the Biden administration would be a moderate administration, but it’s not,” he said.

He said Kamala Harris will move even “further left” than Biden.

“I mean, her dad is literally… a Marxist economist,” Musk said. (Even left-wing Snopes has acknowledged Stanford University Professor Donald Harris is a Marxist.)

Musk also said that Harris is “far left” but there is a “propaganda” campaign to remake her into a moderate.

“And we’re seeing just an overnight propaganda attempt to rewrite history and make it sound like Kamala’s moderate when she in fact is not moderate,” Musk said.

Trump pointed out that Harris’s running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, is also a radical. As governor, he signed a law requiring boys’ bathrooms to provide female hygiene products.

“Well, her running mate approved, signed into legislation tampons in boys’ bathrooms, okay? Now that’s all I have to hear, tampons in boys’ bathrooms,” the former president said. “And that means she believes in that, too. I mean, she picked this guy because he was the closest to her.”

“If we have her as a president, if we have a Democrat at this moment as the president, I don’t think our country can survive,” Trump warned.

Both talked about “common sense” views and the need to avoid the country turning into a nation-sized San Francisco or California.

“I think these are issues that I think most people in America would agree with, which is that we want safe and clean cities,” Musk said. “We want secure borders” and “sensible government spending,” as well as a fair judicial system.

Open borders are ‘existential issue,’ Musk says

Unchecked illegal immigration is a threat to the country and an “existential issue,” according to Musk.

“Whether it’s a question of intention or competence, either way, we don’t have a secure border and we have people streaming over like it looks like a World War Z zombie apocalypse at times,” Musk said, referencing Vice President Harris’ role as border czar.

Referencing a trip he took to the border, Musk said the people crossing “did not look friendly.”

“These are rough people,” Trump said in agreement.

“The caravans are coming in… and who’s doing this is the heads of the countries,” Trump said.

“The fact is it’s brilliant for them because they’re [sending] all their bad people, really bad people,” he warned and stated that among the illegal migrants were people who are lazy or won’t work.

He added: “And they’re also getting rid of their of their murderers and their drug dealers and the people that are really brutal people.”

He also suggested that foreign countries are sending prisoners into the USA to save the money it would cost to keep them in jail.

Trump criticized Harris for suggesting that she is going to start securing the border, noting that she has not done so since taking office in 2021.

“I think this is a fundamental existential issue for the United States,” Musk said during the interview. “And if we have another four more years of open borders, and it’s gonna be even worse. With another four more years, it’s gonna be even worse than it’s been for the past three and a half years.”

“I’m not sure we’ve got a country,” the Tesla CEO warned.

The pair also discussed how relatively few of the migrants are from neighboring Mexico.

“It’s Earth, the rest of Earth,” Musk said.

Musk and Trump also discussed some of the more radical elements of the environmentalist agenda. Though Musk owns an electric car company, he also supports the use of oil and gas. Trump pointed out that most electricity still comes from oil and gas.

“Even to create your electric car and create the electricity needed for the electric car, you know, fossil fuel is what really creates that at the generating plants,” Trump said.

Musk was more pessimistic, saying the country may need to move away from oil and gas, but that even in 100 years the country would “probably be okay” in terms of fuel. He said there should not be “hardship” in moving away from oil and gas.

He suggested that both solar and nuclear power could provide more energy in the future.

The conversation between the CEO and the former POTUS also covered the “lawfare” against Trump, who has been targeted with questionable charges and novel legal theories, including in New York. There, a left-wing prosecutor named Alvin Bragg got the president convicted on questionable charges of campaign finance violations for alleged hush money payments he made to a porn actress. The decision has drawn criticism from legal experts.

“It does happen in banana republics and third world countries, but it’s never happened [here],” Trump said.

The former president also declared that Harris would harm the country if elected president, saying that she “destroyed” San Francisco and California while in power there. Harris served as the district attorney for San Francisco prior to running for attorney general.

Harris is “radical left,” Trump said.

“She is a San Francisco liberal who destroyed San Francisco. And then as attorney general, she destroyed California,” Trump said.

“Our country is becoming a very dangerous place,” Trump warned shortly after those comments. “And she is a radical left, San Francisco liberal.”

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Daily Caller / 1 hour ago

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Can Trump Legally Send Troops Into Our Cities? The Answer Is ‘Wishy-Washy’

Daily Caller / 1 hour ago

Democrats Explicitly Tell Spy Agencies, Military To Disobey Trump

Energy / 2 hours ago

Carney bets on LNG, Alberta doubles down on oil

Daily Caller

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Can Trump Legally Send Troops Into Our Cities? The Answer Is ‘Wishy-Washy’

Published on November 19, 2025

By

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Alan M. Dershowitz

If I were still teaching a course on constitutional law, I would use President Donald Trump’s decision to send troops into cities as a classic example of an issue whose resolution is unpredictable. There are arguments on both sides, many of which are fact-specific and depend on constantly changing circumstances.

A few conclusions are fairly clear:

First, under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the president clearly has the authority to send federal law enforcement officials to protect federal buildings or federal officials from danger. Moreover, the president gets to decide, subject to limited judicial review, whether such dangers exist. State and city officials cannot interfere with the proper exercise of such federal authority.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

Second, and equally clear, is that if there is no federal interest that requires protection, the president has no authority to intrude on purely local matters, such as street crime. The 10th Amendment and various statutes leave local law enforcement entirely in the hands of the states.

Third, the president has greater authority over Washington, DC, even with the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973, than he does over other cities.

Fourth, there are limited situations in which the president has authority, even if there is no direct federal interest in protecting a federal building or authorities. One such instance is an “insurrection.”

Yet the law is unclear as to a) the definition of an insurrection; b) who gets to decide whether an insurrection, however defined, is ongoing; and c) what is the proper role of the judiciary in reviewing a presidential decision that an insurrection is occurring.

The same is true of an invasion. This is somewhat easier to define, but there will be close cases, such as a dictator sending hordes of illegal immigrants to destabilize a nation.

How Do We Legally Define What’s Happening Now?

In a democracy, especially one with a system of checks and balances and a division of power such as ours, the question almost always comes down to who gets to decide? Our legal system recognizes the possibility ‒ indeed, the likelihood ‒ that whoever gets to make that decision may get it wrong.

So the issue becomes: Who has the right to be wrong? In most democracies, especially those with unitary parliamentary systems, the right to be wrong belongs to the elected branch of government ‒ namely, the legislature. At the federal level, that’s Congress, under Article 1 of the Constitution.

However, since the Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, all legislative decisions are subject to constitutional judicial review. Even a majority of the voters or their legislators are not empowered to violate the Constitution.

And if the Constitution is unclear, ambiguous or even inconsistent? I have a cartoon hanging in my office showing one of the framers saying to the others: “Just for fun, let’s make what is or isn’t constitutional kind of wishy-washy.”

Well, on the issue of presidential power to send troops into cities over the objection of local politicians, the Constitution is kind of “wishy-washy.” To paraphrase former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, when he discussed hardcore pornography: “Perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly (defining it), but I know it when I see it.”

The same may be said of an insurrection. It’s hard to define in advance with any degree of precision except at the extremes, but not so difficult to identify if one sees it.

The Legal Endgame Here Isn’t Clear, Either

The Civil War was an insurrection. Anti-Israel protests on campuses were not. But what about the violence in cities like Portland, where left-wing protesters burned cars and buildings and blocked access in 2024?

Some of these groups would love nothing more than to incite an insurrection, but they lack the power, at least at the moment, to garner sufficient support for anything broader than a violent demonstration or riot.

Does the president have to wait until these quixotic “insurrectionists” have garnered such support? Or can he take preventive steps that include sending in federal law enforcement officials? What about federal troops? Is that different?

These questions will eventually make their way to the Supreme Court, which is likely to try to defer broadly based and categorical answer as long as possible. In the meantime, district judges in cities across the country will rule against the president, except in cases involving protection of federal buildings, federal officials and the nation’s capital.

The president will appeal, and the appellate courts will likely split, depending on the particular circumstances of the cases.

“Wishy-washy” and “we’ll know it when we see it” are the best we are going to get in this complex situation.

Alan Dershowitz is professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and the author of “Get Trump,” “Guilt by Accusation” and “The Price of Principle.” This piece is republished from the Alan Dershowitz Newsletter.

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Democrats Explicitly Tell Spy Agencies, Military To Disobey Trump

Published on November 19, 2025

By

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Anthony Iafrate

Democratic Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin posted a video to social media Tuesday morning in which she and five of her congressional colleagues called for the military and the intelligence community to “stand up” to President Donald Trump’s administration.

The half-dozen Democratic lawmakers who took part in the video titled, “Don’t give up the ship,” had all served as military or intelligence officers. In her X post of the video, Slotkin stated the lawmakers seek to “directly” tell service members and intelligence personnel that the “American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution.”

“We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now,” Slotkin, a former CIA officer, said in the video she appeared in alongside Democratic Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Democratic Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, Democratic New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander and Democratic Colorado Rep. Jason Crow.

“Americans trust their military,” said Houlahan, a former Air Force officer.

“But that trust is at risk,” added Deluzio, a former officer in the Navy.

“This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” Kelly, a former Navy officer, said in tandem with Crow, a former Army officer, and Slotkin.

WATCH:

 

“Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders,” Kelly, Slotkin and Deluzio said later in the video.

“Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution,” Kelly and Goodlander, a former naval intelligence officer who is married to Biden-era former national security adviser Jake Sullivan, charged military and intelligence personnel.

Deluzio and Crow claimed that “threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.”

The lawmakers added that they know that what they are urging is “hard” and that “it is a difficult time to be a public servant.”

“But whether you are serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. And know that we have your back,” they continued, alternating lines. “Because now more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans.”

“Don’t give up, don’t give up, don’t give up, don’t give up the ship,” the Democrats concluded.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The president is also in charge of intelligence agencies such as the FBI and CIA, by virtue of being head of the Executive Branch of the federal government — a responsibility laid out in Article II, Section 1.

“Don’t give up the ship” is a common phrase that dates back to the War of 1812 and were the last words uttered by Navy Captain James Lawrence before he succumbed to his gunshot wound on the USS Chesapeake.

Continue Reading

Trending

X