JD Vance, Joe Rogan, Epstein, and Israel

00:00:03 Speaker 1: My name is Charlie kirk I run the largest pro American student organization in the country, fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're gonna end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you'll end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You got to stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start at turning point you would say college chapter. 00:00:33 Speaker 2: Go. 00:00:33 Speaker 1: Start at turning point youould say high school chapter. Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade, most important decision I ever made in my life, and I encourage you to do the same. 00:00:45 Speaker 3: Here I am Lord, Use me. 00:00:48 Speaker 1: Buckle up, everybody, Here we go. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirkshaw, a company that specializes in gold iras and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments dot Com. That is Noblegoldinvestments dot Com. 00:01:17 Speaker 4: All right, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show. It is July sixteenth, twenty twenty six. 00:01:23 Speaker 5: Blake, we got a lot to get to. 00:01:25 Speaker 4: This is one of the busier news days in the last couple weeks. This Joe Rogan interview between Jadvance and Joe Rogan basically dominated the Internet yesterday because they went into a lot of different topics. Let me just quickly preview the show and then we're gonna break that interview down as best we can. We've got Senator Eric Schmidt on. We're gonna be talking Save America Act. We're gonna be talking the NDAA. A lot of people are talking about Section two one nine that sort of proposes cooperation. Some are calling it a merger between Israel and the US military, sort of tech development, intel sharing. 00:02:05 Speaker 5: We're going to talk all about that. 00:02:07 Speaker 4: Just as a preview, I'm very leery of that anything with any country that gives over any semblance of control or sovereignty, but let's keep an open mind. We're going to talk Derek Schmid about that. Then we've got Sean Spicer. We're gonna go around the horn on midterms and everything that's shaping up the DSA takeover of the left. And then we've got Alex Marlowe at the final half of the second hour, So busy, busy show, Blake, Why don't you just set the stage for why this JD Joe Rogan interview has taken the Internet by storm. 00:02:42 Speaker 6: Well, it circles back to what made the twenty twenty four elections so exceptional. President Trump and JD Vance's running mate. They ran an unconventional campaign. It evaded a lot of the traditional media, but it went to new media, which as we know, is incredibly popular. Far more people while and listen to Joe Rogan then watch and listen to CNN on a given night. And he has tremendous ability to especially reach younger Americans, young men, that swing demographic that Charlie worked so hard to reach and that the campaign had so much success reaching. But as we know, what swung our way in twenty twenty four has started to swing back the other way. We have people who are upset about Epstein files, we have people who are upset about Iran. 00:03:29 Speaker 5: We have the. 00:03:30 Speaker 6: General tendency of young people to quickly get disillusioned with things and swing back and forth, and so there's been a lot of attention that Joe Rogan has said stuff critical of the administration. He's said stuff critical of the right generally, but we've also praised Vice President Vance. He goes into the arena, he goes where it's tough. He was on the view and now he's back on Joe Rogan, and he didn't really hold anything back. He talked about every topic we can imagine, and some of them are getting a lot of chatter as which is what we're going to hit just now. 00:04:03 Speaker 4: Well, why don't we hit the main one first here, just to get make sure we get it, And this is they're talking about Israel's influence in the US, in our political system. You see really really dramatic reactions on both sides of this debate. So let's play the clip and we'll talk about it. 00:04:20 Speaker 7: It's not twenty six, but I definitely think you have seen this very discreete extremely well funded campaign to try to derail. 00:04:30 Speaker 5: The negotiation and try to derail the deal. 00:04:33 Speaker 8: And you know there was again there's this time article that came out yesterday. A friends send it to me. It's like worth reading because it lists a bunch of people who have quite literally been paid by a former Trump campaign person who was himself paid by certain elements within the Israeli government, And those people are attacking me viciously for quite literally trying to accomplish the negotiation objective that the President's set for the country. Again, when I open up the pages of Time magazine and I see that there's a literal foreign influence campaign being funded to tank the very deal that I was pursuing, you know, my response to that is, well, go to hell. I'm gonna do what I have to do for the American people. 00:05:16 Speaker 4: Yeah, And I think let's pair that really quick with another clip that I think fills in some of the context here, and it is about Iran. 00:05:25 Speaker 5: It is about Israel Sat ten. 00:05:28 Speaker 8: If the Iranian people want to rise up and change their government, that's up to them. But we're not going to send one hundred and fifty thousand ground troops in order to accomplish a change in a regime unless the people on the ground themselves want to accomplish that outcome. Now, we're not going to send the troops in regardless. But like to propose sending in the troops, you're basically saying that the US military should do the job for the Iranian people. We're not in that business anymore. 00:05:58 Speaker 4: We're just not all right, So let's just frame the debate. A lot of people are seeing these clips and they're saying JD is echoing the sentiments of Tucker Carlson, He's Tucker's you know, Mitt Tucker is JD's mentor or something like that. I think that is far too simplistic. I think what JD is saying is something that we have actually said on this show. And I'm trying to grapple with why is this so controversial to some? It follows logic that being in a perpetual, forever war is not something President Trump ran on. JD did not go and negotiate an MoU with Iran in a vacuum. 00:06:40 Speaker 5: He did that at the President's bidding. 00:06:42 Speaker 4: So to put this all on JD, or to put this as some sort of betrayal to Israel, I think it's completely disingenuous. And he's making the same point Blake that we made on this show as they were pursuing peace. Piece is good, Piece is popular. We saw that in the polling, and what is the alternative right right now now? 00:07:00 Speaker 2: Now? 00:07:00 Speaker 5: We are trading blows with Iran. 00:07:03 Speaker 4: Now they're saying that they want to get back to the negotiating table. They just released a US prisoner of Theirs in good faith. President Trump thanked them for that. What is the alternative. We're not going to send one hundred, one hundred and fifty thousand ground troops into Iran. Now, yeah, you could say that Iran is not somebody that you can negotiate in good faith with. I think everybody at that table, at the negotiating table, including JD, understands the dynamic there, but I'm struggling to understand it. Blake when we just heard recently that the Department of War and other intel agencies within our federal government are concerned about Israel spying on the US. In fact, the report states that those efforts have been ramped up recently. So I think when we talk about influence in the United States, people get upset that we focus on Israel. We don't necessarily do that on this show, but it's a fair critique. Cutter spends way more money. Other countries have a lot more malign influence in this country, but Israel can probably get a better ROI out of that. Influence because they're talking too many sympathetic voters and politicians, right, and so the influence is there. JD just said, Hey, it's very it's very effective influence because it's speaking to a crowd that is, you know, sympathetic to Israel and it's plight in the Middle East. I certainly am one of those people. But here's here's the deal. I don't understand at essence where the core of the controversy is other than he's not saying let's go bomb the heck out of Iran and regime. 00:08:33 Speaker 5: J I mean, am I missing something that. 00:08:35 Speaker 9: Is the core of it? That's that JD. 00:08:38 Speaker 6: Vance has become the face of a fight that we know was going on before this administration even took office. It is, frankly, it's it's the breakdown of the popularity of Israel with the US public, and there's a struggle over that and JD. Vance has become the focal point of it. And I'm sure we'll probably be able to discuss it more in the future here because that struggle is not going. 00:09:02 Speaker 5: Away, all right. 00:09:03 Speaker 4: So one of my frustrations with this Blake is that it feels like the interests on either side of this debate are so deeply invested that even what appeared to me to be a common sense approach right down the middle, like hey, we like Israel, we support Israel, but we also understand that they're attempting to influence this debate. They don't want to see the MoU get done, so you know that's a problem. And he's basically saying, Hey, other countries are trying to influence us too, that's what they're gonna do. We understand it, but American politicians need to be aware of it, and we need to keep America's interest first and foremost. 00:09:41 Speaker 5: Here. 00:09:42 Speaker 6: It's acts like a common sense approach. It's absolutely a thankless task. And we saw this with Charlie because Charlie tried to chart out a similar path and we saw what happened. We have people say he's a Zio shill, a fake Christian on one end. We saw people say he was an anti Semite on the other end. Both of those attacks were completely. 00:10:00 Speaker 9: False and they were pretty hurtful. 00:10:02 Speaker 6: And it's something that's going to happen because it is simply the case. There are people in America who believe that America and Israel's interests are identical, and sometimes that can translate to if the Israeli government wants a thing, you're basically opposing America if you pose that. 00:10:20 Speaker 9: And on the flip side, you. 00:10:21 Speaker 6: Have people who basically believe Israel is an enemy nation to the United States, and so we can never align our interests and you're a traitor if you're not trying to, frankly like actively give weapons to Palestinians and so forth. And it's very difficult for either of those strands to handle even a moderate path. They see even the moderate path is actually hopelessly extreme and dangerous. 00:10:45 Speaker 9: And I think there's a lot. 00:10:47 Speaker 6: Of people who actually go down the Vice President's middle path, but he's become the symbol of it, and so that's exposed into a lot of attacks. 00:10:56 Speaker 4: Yeah, he is that sort of center point in the tug of war, which I do believe to your point is where a lot of Americans are. We like Israel, we support them, We want them to be able to defend themselves against attacks, you know, if they are getting attacked. Uh, we have you know, you and I both have a ton of Jewish friends. Dennis Praeger was uh one of Charlie's mentors and dearest friends and continues to be a dear friend of mine. At the same time, we can all acknowledge that at various points, at any type of you know, whether it be foreign policy or negotiations with Iran, that we are going to have differences of prioritization. And that is natural between two sovereign entities. So to the point that with this MoU, which was the same point I have been making since the MoU came onto the scene, was what is the alternative? The alternative is, I guess we do this forever war stuff. We we you know, find ourselves in a detent of some sort where now President Trump says, we're going to be controlling the straight up hornm moose and definitely, and we're going to be you know, charging a toll essentially to for those efforts, for the expense that is incurred by the United States to do that. Listen, we have warned about the fact that this war is easy to start, hard to end. Okay, JD is trying to forge an end to that, and he's been deployed by the President of the United States to do that. But what's interesting is that some people hear this and they hear anti Israel sentiment me as a Christian American patriot. I didn't hear any anti Semitism in there. I didn't hear any anti Israel sentiment in there. I just heard common sense. Hey, we've got to pursue peace. We achieved our core objectives, and we've got to move forward. And again, what is the alternative. We're not going to be sending one hundred hundred fifty thousand ground troops into a rum. 00:12:40 Speaker 5: It's just not going to happen. There's no will on our side to do it politically or militarily. 00:12:44 Speaker 9: And that's ultimately what a lot of this is. 00:12:47 Speaker 6: I think a lot of people have not given up the ghosts of full regime changed war with Iran. They felt they came tantalizingly close last February. 00:12:57 Speaker 9: I mean I saw that play out. 00:12:59 Speaker 6: I saw that play out on x in online chats I was in were people who were enthusiastic. Once the bombs started falling, they started saying, you know, a few thousand troops on carg Island could end this war. A few thousand troops helicoptered into Tehran could end to this war. And you know that if that came to pass and the war didn't end, it would be well, fifty thousand troops would end it, one undred thousand troops would end it. Some people are just not given up on this, and again they're looking around for someone to blame. The Vice President has certainly become the face of He's become the face of the people fighting for a negotiated end to the war, a more immediate end to the war, and so that's generated a lot of attacks. And I don't think a lot of these people will necessarily have ill will for America overall. I don't think all of them are just are dedicated Israeli agents or whatever. But I think I think that's what's driving this. 00:13:51 Speaker 4: And yeah, but let's just be clear, what's really driving this is a proxy for twenty twenty eight. Also that I want the audience to fully internalize that. Yeah, because what this is is there is an internal battle between factions that want Marco to run and they see him as more sort of I would say fitting with the historical norm of the relationship with Israel and Jade Vance is probably a little bit more of a pragmatist when it comes to this, that we have American interests that sometimes diverge. We like them, we want to support them, but where those interests diverge, we're going to pursue American interests. I would say Marco would probably articulate his position similarly, but I think there is essentially a larger bond of trust between that faction and Marco, and so everything is getting pushed in as this proxy to twenty twenty eight. And again I'm sitting here last night not fully understanding where the controversy is coming from until you realize that this is a proxy about twenty twenty eight. This is sort of saying, hey, he's not sounding the right notes for a certain faction, and we're going to have a larger reaction than probably is justified. I will say. There was another piece they talked about Epstein. Jd Vance admitted that the rollout was from a communication standpoint, not ideal. 00:15:08 Speaker 5: It was a disaster. 00:15:09 Speaker 4: I think he said owned up to that and said that his position on this is that he certainly seems to have ties to intelligence communities, including Israeli, including American, but he you know, remains unsure. So all of that was packed, and they also talked about California. They talked about the Save America Act. They talked about how full of it that Gavin Newsom is. So it is a phenomenal, phenomenal watch. I am not all the way through it. I'm about two thirds of the way through it. I recommend everybody go check it out for yourself, get the tone in the context for yourself, because the reaction to it just feels disproportionate from the reality. More Americans are starting to ask an important question, why is it so difficult to get access to medications you may already know you need. If you're your health is your responsibility. Why are outside systems deciding what you can have and when you're allowed to get it. That's one reason I recommend All Family Pharmacy. They make it super simple to order a wide range of medications online, from everyday maintenance medications to travel an emergency preparedness options. The process is straightforward, secure, and it's designed for people who value convenience and peace of mind. Whether you're preparing for a trip, dealing with pharmacy shortages, or simply want to be proactive for your family, All Family Pharmacy helps put you back in control and right now when you visit All Familypharmacy dot com slash kirk and use promo code Kirk ten. You'll save ten percent off your order. Because being prepared isn't political, it's just responsible. So visit All Familypharmacy dot com, slash kirk and use code Kirk ten for ten percent off. 00:16:49 Speaker 5: Why not just have voter ID? 00:16:51 Speaker 10: Yeah, you actually that not only did they not have voter ID. You can't show your ID. You're not allowed to show. 00:16:56 Speaker 5: Your impacte like prosecuted. 00:16:58 Speaker 8: If you try to force somebody to show their. 00:17:00 Speaker 11: Right that seems like you want people to cheat exactly. And is this from the same people that we're saying you have to have an ID that shows you've been vaccinated just four years ago to go. 00:17:11 Speaker 3: To roaster shopping or to go to a restaurant. 00:17:14 Speaker 4: Great points. Senator Eric Schmidt joins us from Missouri. He is one of the good guys. Senator, Welcome to the show. There's been a lot of noise about this Save America Act right now it seems like it's heating up again. Mike Lee's out front, Rick Scott's up front, You're out front. Where are we at currently? And I'm saying so hints that this Reconciliation Bill is like it's going to be voluntary. 00:17:37 Speaker 5: States have to opt in, please fill a sim. 00:17:40 Speaker 12: Look, I think that we we have I think we have a limited amount of time to do it. That's why I think there's more of a sense of urgency, right because we want to get this done in time for it to matter in twenty twenty six. 00:17:51 Speaker 3: There's two I would say there's two kind of tracks. 00:17:53 Speaker 12: There's there's what people have come to know as the Save America Act, like the statute that includes and I'm sponsor of what President Trump wants, the kind of the five pillars, which is voter ID you have to be an American citizen to vote in American elections. And then the cutting back on this widespread election or mail in balloting scams that we've seen in different states. Then it's no men and women's sports and no transgender mutilation of our kids. That's the thing that you know, there's original kind of the first two pieces of that. But having said that, that's the piece that if we're going to do it, we have to do the talking filibuster. In my mind, we have to spend the time on the floor to try to wear down the Democrats or at least kind of just see where everybody's at because they're going to do a quorum call. We got to make sure we have fifty one people out there all the time. That is our best shot on that. What's now being talked about what the House is considering is because through reconciliation, although it only requires a simple majority, you can only deal with like budget matters. You can't like have a policy change or something like that. So what they're talking about, I think is to have dollars in there to support like states doing voter ID, making sure that you can check to make sure these are American citizens, that kind of thing. So look, as far as I'm concerned, the more like kind of hands run and same direction is good. 00:19:14 Speaker 3: I think we got to do this. 00:19:15 Speaker 12: I don't understand quite frankly, people who don't want to do it or aren't that committed to it. It's if you don't have as the President said, if you don't have fair elections, you don't have a country. 00:19:24 Speaker 3: And that's why it's important. 00:19:26 Speaker 4: Yeah, but Senator, I'm seeing that it could be voluntary, so the states would have to opt in for these grants. They're trying to carve out ten billion dollars of grants that could go to the state to support ensuring that if you get a real ID that would also confirm you're a citizen. Is that essentially how I'm I'm reading it, And then it would be volunteer. Aren't all the blue states just going to tell us to go pound sand Probably? 00:19:49 Speaker 12: But this is why I haven't seen that language yet. But maybe what you could do is something like they do with like highway funding, right, which is, if you don't have a point oh eight DTA eye law in your state, you don't get the highway funding. So that this is admittedly, and I think Mike Lee has even said this is not the ideal way to do it, but it is something. But clearly I think we should still try to do the whole shooting match, right, which is the Save America Act and and and uh, the budgetary stuff is something, but it's it's certainly not what I think people have come to understand Save America to be. 00:20:25 Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean this this sounds kind of like a disappointment. 00:20:28 Speaker 5: I'm gonna be honest. It should be mandatory. 00:20:32 Speaker 4: The federal government controls federal elections, the states can control their local elections, I suppose, but it just it just beggars belief that we can't get this mandated across the states, and that it would be an opt in for the worst actors, which are the blue states. They don't want to do this anyways because they know it's going to hurt their electoral chances. 00:20:49 Speaker 12: Well, yeah, Senator Sockin said the same thing, And I would also point out that one of the reasons, you know, I was Attorney General Missouri and we fought back against We beat back Mark Lias in Missouri when during COVID they were trying to change our election laws. When President Trump, I don't know exactly what he's going to say tonight, but I do think to my Republican colleagues and others, there are mail in balloting schemes. When you have a system in your state that just sends these ballots to everybody in the state, whether they've requested them or not, and you have these dropboxes, it's really hard to detect the kind of fraud that we know will happen in that kind of scenario. So I've been a big proponent of cracking down on this mail in balloting fraud and whatever we do I think that should be a part of it. 00:21:28 Speaker 4: But anyway, well, absolutely, we have a great example of this from California. 00:21:33 Speaker 5: I mean, yeah, you know, I don't have to play the clip. It's forty seconds long. 00:21:37 Speaker 4: But you know Joe Rogan, who is He's a call balls and strikes kind of guy, right, He said, I'm not skeptical. 00:21:44 Speaker 5: I'm accusing them. I think they stole the election. 00:21:47 Speaker 4: He's talking about the Spencer Pratt election, and I agree with him. Let's quickly transition here, Senator Schmidt. We've got this NDAA section two nineteen. People are saying that it's merging the US and Israeli governments together. But there's I guess there's two aspects of it. There is the intel sharing, and then there's the tech development, the military tech development portion of it. On its face, this seems not like a like a bad idea, and it's not specific to Israel. It's specific to the fact that it feels like a bad idea in general. You know, you want your military to be like completely. You want the country to be sovereign. You want the military to be controlled by the sovereign, not hamstrung by some foreign country. What's your position on this and does it have a realistic chance of actually proceeding and passing. 00:22:34 Speaker 12: So I'm gonna be clear, this is a this is a House provision right now, because they're actually on the NDAA. 00:22:39 Speaker 3: This is a House provision. And what that section, I guess. 00:22:42 Speaker 12: Reports to do is it creates a separate office, like almost an executive office outside the President of the legislature to manage this and to coordinate I mean, I think even requiring coordination of intelligence. And so you know, from my perspective that is not in the Senate, that is in the House. But you know me, one of the reasons why Charlie and I hit it off so well from the very beginning is I'm a very America first foreign policy guy. 00:23:09 Speaker 3: With any country. 00:23:10 Speaker 12: If our if our foreign policy interests aligned, great, if they don't. I'm an American, I represent Missouri in the United States Senate. I'm you know, I want to make sure our foreign policy works for the American people. 00:23:22 Speaker 3: I've been you know. So that's kind of where I'm at on it. We'll see. 00:23:25 Speaker 12: I don't know what exactly they're going to do, but I don't want to I don't want to see any sovereignty, do another country. 00:23:29 Speaker 3: I'll promise you that and. 00:23:30 Speaker 4: So, and that's the thing I mean, Sorry, Senator. We have similar arrangements with the UK and Australia, but we see as our interests with the UK are diverging and they're losing their minds about free speech and Islam and immigration. I mean, how much longer can we actually trust that they're a country that is, you know, sharing our interests at a very fundamental level. I mean, our values are diverging as we speak. So why get in bed so deeply with any foreign power when you can't control said forign powers political reality? 00:24:04 Speaker 3: Right? 00:24:04 Speaker 5: I guess I think doesn't make any sense to me. 00:24:07 Speaker 12: I think the key is to make sure we have flexibility and not to lock in something that we're required to do because circumstances can change. Somebody's asked me why I was so supportive of the president's you know, desire to acquire Greenland and he wasn't talking about invading Greenland. But why is that important? Well, first of all, it's in our core national interest. It's in the Arctic circle. Secondly, critical minerals that are there, you can mine them and refine them on that you know island. And then thirdly, I don't know what Denmark's government looks like in fifty years. It could be run by a bunch of radical you know, Mullahs or something. I don't really know. So I want to make sure we control, we control. I've I've been very clear that our European allies specifically need to start providing for their own defense in a much more meaningful way. 00:24:51 Speaker 3: We have been subsidizing this. 00:24:53 Speaker 12: They have been They have been subsidizing by us doing that, subsidizing their social welfare programs and not really committed to their own defense. In America can't be everywhere all at once all the time. We got to focus on the homeland, we got to focus on the Western hemisphere, and we got to focus on our chief rival for the next one hundred years, which is China. And so this is a hard lesson for the Europeans to learn. President Trump talks about it, Vice President Vance talks about Marco Rubio talks about it, this pivot. Europe for a long time has believed that the center of the universe and this kind of post World War two world well, guess what, after the Cold War, we never really adjusted. We should have This was a mistake by Republicans and Democrats quite frankly, in that we never renegotiated these trade deals that were made after World War Two. We never asked the Europeans to step up in a much more meaningful way. And it is now finally we have an administration that is focused on kind of the Western hemisphere, and like I said, communist China, that is where our core national interests are. And that's those are the things I'm advocating for. 00:25:51 Speaker 9: I think you speak that well that we need to. 00:25:54 Speaker 6: It's America has been so strong, it got so easy for us to just see our interests as the world's interest. But we do need this pullback focus core American interests first before we save the entire world. 00:26:06 Speaker 9: And I think that's well said. 00:26:07 Speaker 3: One hundred percent. 00:26:10 Speaker 4: Hi, folks, Andrew Colvett here, I'd like to tell you about my friends over at why REFI. You've probably been hearing me talk about y REFI for some time now. We are all in with these guys. If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call. Maybe you're behind on your payments, maybe you're even in default. You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore. Why Refy will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back. We go to campuses all over American We see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt. Many of them don't even know how much they owe. Why ref I can help. Just go to y refi dot com. That's the letter, Why then refi dot com. And remember why Refi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to yrefi dot com and tell them your friend Andrews sent you. All right, So, since we have lost Senator Schmidt, I want to keep going with these Rogan clips. 00:27:14 Speaker 5: These are just too good, Blake. We're gonna go. We're doing it. We're going into your favorite topic, and that's Epstein st nine. 00:27:22 Speaker 8: He clearly had connections to the upper the highest levels of American intelligence. He clearly had connections to the highest levels of Israeli intelligence. 00:27:32 Speaker 4: All right, So that's getting a lot of that's making waves, Blake, that he that jd Vance is saying definitively that he clearly had ties. So I'm sure you've got opinions, but hold them to your once one more second, we'll play the longer clipstop. 00:27:45 Speaker 8: For the problem is, if you go back to the original investigation, it was designed in a way that was way too narrow if there was a broader conspiracy. And you know, my view is that there probably was the evidence that exists in two thousand and seven that was the opportunity to get So you know, I could literally do two episodes about this. I've gone on down to every rabbit hole. 00:28:06 Speaker 10: But it's clear that he was trying to get in contact with people that he felt were influential. He was trying to either influence people or compromise people. 00:28:17 Speaker 3: Correct. 00:28:17 Speaker 10: So it's not there's some sort of an operation. 00:28:22 Speaker 8: There is a story there, and you know, I will go to my deathbed believing there's a story there, but I can't prove it. And I promise you there's not some document that at least I'm hiding that allows us to prove exactly what was going on. 00:28:38 Speaker 6: All right, holding back, We've been around the block on this a few times, and I think you and I both know that's the kind of answer that is certainly never going to satisfy a lot of people where he says, Yah, you know, I think there's something probably there, but you know, there's no document for it, there's nothing to prove it. And you know how I feel about this at this point. My suspicion is the reason there's probably no document proving it is there's probably surprisingly little there. You can say he had connections to intelligence, Israeli and US, but what does a. 00:29:12 Speaker 9: Connection amount to? 00:29:13 Speaker 6: This is a guy that we know made a huge number of friends. He was a supreme social butterfly. He was very good at socially manipulating people, and he was a very he was a consummate liar. 00:29:24 Speaker 9: He was good at lying to people. 00:29:26 Speaker 6: And does that mean he probably had met and corresponded with and knew a lot of people. 00:29:31 Speaker 9: Yeah? 00:29:32 Speaker 6: Does it mean what people mean when they say Intelligence ties that he was a fixer, that he was a trafficker, that he was getting blackmail on people. All I would say is I think we should have more evidence before we actually say those things. And I can't wonder, I can't help, but wonder did the Vice president hurt himself a little bit by even going as far as he did, because I don't know if there is evidence that. I don't know if there is strong reason to believe that there's more there. 00:29:57 Speaker 4: Well, I will tell you, you know, to your point, the the evidence point is valid. I certainly believe that I tend to be of the Vice President's persuasion here that I do believe there was ties. 00:30:08 Speaker 5: I do believe that there was connections. 00:30:10 Speaker 4: To what extent those were formalized, They probably weren't formalized, right, and so there's probably not going to be a trail that's visible or available to even the best investigators, the most dispassionate investigators to track down. But we certainly know that his rise was very shady. I think he was a con artist. I think he was good at building relationships with powerful people. And I'm not convinced that there was some black book with every list of his clients and the compromitt that he held over their heads. I think he was a good time guy that liked to party and was a total skis ball, and he was a creep and a weirdo. And I think he had sexual fetishes that obviously led him down a very, very criminal and destructive path. 00:30:55 Speaker 5: And he did take some other people with him. 00:30:56 Speaker 4: Now, to the extent that you know other people were involved in that or were even aware, I think it varies, and I think we should get accountability on that. So I have no problem with what he said. My instincts lead me to believe the same thing that he does. But to your point, unless there's evidence, there's nothing that that can be done. Now, there is a lot of evidence that he was in communication with a lot of people, that he was doing business at a very high level. But if you've ever been around these circles, you know that that the relationships are kind of where the rubber meets road. That is how the business gets done. So to his point, I don't know that we'll ever be able to prove it, but speculation will continue to run rampant. And yeah, I mean I think he reflects the thinking of a lot of people out there. You know, some people are are frustrated that he went there. I have no problem with it, and you know, it is what it is, all right, so real quick, go ahead. 00:31:55 Speaker 6: The best thing he did, and it's something I think we needed a little earlier, was just the Frank acknowledgment that the files could have been handled better by the administration. I think he just said, yeah, very obviously, we messed this up. And I just think back, that's what Charlie was trying to get across a year ago, and he took heap for it. 00:32:15 Speaker 9: Charlie was a brave guy. He just said, this is a tough thing. 00:32:19 Speaker 6: They kind of tried to come out on a Sunday night and say, yeah, there's not really that much here, let's move on to another thing. 00:32:25 Speaker 9: And I just think they didn't quite. 00:32:26 Speaker 6: Appreciate how attached people were to this issue and coming back to it and saying, we get it. People really wanted more here, and we messed that up. I think is a welcome type of transparency. That's that's the Trump administration at its best. 00:32:40 Speaker 4: So here's my take to sum up the JD Vance interview with Joe Rogan. Lots of controversy over the Israel topics, over Iran, over Epstein. I am a believer that he is reflecting the majority opinion in essentially every single one. 00:32:57 Speaker 5: Of these topics. 00:32:59 Speaker 4: And there are going to be niche constituency that want him to go harder, that want him to go softer, that want him to I'm telling you he's reflective of the of the larger population. 00:33:09 Speaker 5: I believe JD. 00:33:10 Speaker 4: Vance has remained very very in touch with the base. He's remained very very in touch with the sentiment of the American public public. And there's gonna people be people on either ends of those debates that are gonna get really up in arms. You saw this with the MoU. You saw when he was out there pursuing the MoU. His favorables shot through the roof. President Trump's favorable shot through the roof. Let the process play out, Let's see where this lands. I'm a one to believe that JD should be doing this twice a month at least, having these interesting conversations in depth. Angels Studios has a new feature film that is a must see, and I really really mean it. This film tells the untold story of George Washington before he was a general or a president. At just twenty years old, Washington faced crushing failures, near death experiences, and pivotal moments that forge the courage, the character, and the leadership that would one day shape the United States. Angel Studios and Wonder Project have joined forces to bring you a high quality production that doesn't erase the values that made George Washington who he was. It's not some woke film directed by John Irwin, who did Jesus Revolution. I can only imagine American underdog House of David. This epic film brings history to life with authenticity, scale, and truth. With these incredible people behind it, you know it's going to be good. Starring legends like Andy Serkis, Ben Kingsley, and Kelsey Grammer. Young Washington arrives in theaters this Independence Day, right on the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of America's founding. Angel tells the stories America was built on, no apologies or rewriting, just the truth of who we are. Their curated library of films and shows honors this country instead of tearing it down. 00:34:52 Speaker 5: This isn't a woke version of history. 00:34:53 Speaker 4: It's bold, it's authentic, and it's true to who George Washington really was. The biggest blockbuster of the s summer time perfectly with America's two fiftieth anniversary, where you can become a Premium Angel member for only fifteen dollars a month or one hundred and thirty five dollars for an annual membership. You need to see this on the big screen. By becoming a Premium member of Angel, not only can you get tickets to see Young Washington, but you'll get access to their whole library of content, where you can stream other patriotic films and shows like Green and Gold, Micro Rose, Something to Stand For, Homestead and The Last Rodeo, Stories of freedom, sacrifice and the people who made this country what it is. Join the Angel Guild today, go to Angel dot com, slash kirk, take advantage of our special offer and become a Premium member for the lowest price of the season. You'll get two free tickets to see Young Washington in theaters this Independence Day and be a part of making this film the number one movie in America for our nation's two hundred and fiftieth birthday. 00:35:54 Speaker 2: These people are so stupid. I don't know what to say about. 00:35:57 Speaker 5: So now. 00:36:00 Speaker 13: We have this idea that these insurgent democrats, and what is their solution. Is there a solution to beat Republicans, to run against Republicans. No, their solution is to beat democrats. Like that part of the problem. No, you are part of the problem because you're an idiot. 00:36:23 Speaker 4: That's the wonderful James Carville with the great bedside manner as only he can have, lamenting the rise of DSA, which we all should. Here to help us unpack that and much more is Seawn Spicer, host of The Shawn Spicer Show, and former White House Press Secretary. 00:36:39 Speaker 5: Sean I thought it would be appropriate to. 00:36:41 Speaker 4: Have you on today because in just moments, Caroline Levitt is going to be back behind the White House podium and taking questions. So you know, it's a good day to have you on because you know what this is like more than just about anybody else. 00:36:55 Speaker 5: So welcome back, my friend. 00:36:57 Speaker 14: Good to see you guys. 00:36:58 Speaker 5: Thanks for having me. 00:36:58 Speaker 4: So what do you make of this rise of DSA? I mean, this is a huge new development. You've you've seen it coming for a long time. Sean, You've been warning about this for a long time. They are ascendant. There is no doubt about it. I mean, if you just look at this Israel Aid vote that just happened yesterday, I guess they did this with two years ago, eighteen months ago, and they got about thirty thirty five votes to end it. Now they're at one hundred and four hundred and five. It is ascendant. 00:37:27 Speaker 5: What are you looking at when you're assessing the problem that DSA poses for the country and for Democrats specifically. 00:37:34 Speaker 14: Yeah, and first, Andrew, I'd say that our side needs to understand something that this is not a joke, don't. I mean, I think it's scary, and it's kind of funny that people are the stupid that they're buying into it, but don't take it lightly. And we saw now the spread of it go from New York out to Colorado and throughout the country. And my point is, I think there's some things that sometimes in the movement you see and you go, that's crazy, and that's insane. That's true, But I also think that we can't ignore it. That more more people are being told they can have free, this free, that there are no consequences to their policies. I was in New York last week for the International Naval Review and I said to somebody at one point, I said, look at the buses, the city buses that were going by. And they kind of looked up and they said, Okay, what am I looking at? And I said, what is the sign saying? You know, on the front whear it tells you what the route is. So it says the route right and four whatever the code is. And the next thing that flashes is fair required. Now you would think that's kind of silly, like, why would I have to say fair required. Well, the reason it says it is because the people in New York, after the election of Zora Mundahmi, believed that they were going to get free buses. And then Zora Undami got elected and the harsh reality of budgets set in and they realized that's insane. You can't just give everything away for free, like the guy. But the lesson here is understand that these guys are running around talking about free this, free that. And one of the things that I did on my show was don't take my word for it, don't take turning point us say word for it, don't take Donald Trump's word for it. Go to the DSA website look at what they say. Therefore, what they want to do. They want to abolish this United States Senate like this is crazy town. 00:39:14 Speaker 4: We have that clip shown, No, this is true, this is true. Let's play this clip just to underscore your point. 00:39:19 Speaker 5: How crazy. 00:39:20 Speaker 4: They want to literally get rid of everything that has made America America. They want to get rid of the founder's vision and that's not overstating the matter. 00:39:27 Speaker 15: It's not twenty We just don't see the point of the Senate. Historically it was meant to serve very wealthy people who owned a lot of land, and that's still a system that we have today, and it's something we would change. We would expand what the House of Representatives does and make it more actually representative of people who live in this country. 00:39:50 Speaker 5: So would you like to abolish the Senate? 00:39:53 Speaker 15: That's part of our platform. And we don't think that's extreme. We think it's a change that would help make this done free, more democratic. 00:40:01 Speaker 9: What stands out about that? To me, it's extreme. 00:40:05 Speaker 6: It would completely upend two and a half centuries of America's governance project, a very successful constitution we've had. But at the same time, keep in mind, an ordinary American is just gonna hear they abolish to send it make it more democratic. There's no immediate consequence to that, And so I think when he says something like that, it's a challenge to those of us to basically say, the reason you can't have that happen is because it will upend good things our government is doing for you. And if our government is failing, if our government is not helping young people build wealth, get homes, accomplish the things they want in life. People will just hear abolish a Senate. Oh that sounds cool, shake everything, blow it all up. They'll go for it. And New York shows that can happen. 00:40:49 Speaker 14: That's why I use the free bust analogy. Though, is that offering somebody something for free and it's easy? You know, I'm always I joke. I thinks it's funny. I'm the sucker every time you walk in, you know, go on vacation than they do a timeshare setup. I'm like, oh my god, look a free bottle of wine. If I listen to a one hour presentation, she's like, is this you can afford the bottle of wine? Like why are you doing this? But there's something alluring about free stuff and easy stuff, and so you're absolutely right when you talk about eliminating the Senate because it's more democratic. Wow, that's I like more democratic. I like that, that's cool, Like we should do it. Until you realize that part of the reason the Founders gave us the Senate was a check on the House, so that you know, God forbid Keem Jeffries and the nut jobs take it over that they don't just have free rain to do crazy stuff. There's a reason for some of these things, and when you offer someone a simple or easy or free solution, usually it's for a reason. We see this in social media all the time. People say, oh, it's great, it's free. Well, there's a reason that it's freeze because they're gathering all your data and what's that trade off look like. But there's constantly trade offs that we have to make. And what the DSA is offering people is a lot of bumper sticker stuff like free this, free that, get rid of this, make this easier. It is very attractive. I get it. And that's why what I'm trying to say to folks is, do not think this is nuts. That there's an audience that's very appealing to that they're building and they're not doing it just in some little vacuum. In a lot of urban areas, people are finding a lot of this freeze the rent stuff very attractive, and I just I think that we've got to be careful that we start informing. Particularly what you guys do is so important where you've got a much younger audience than a lot of us who are out there, and that people don't get bought into at a young age, this notion of everything is easy, everything is free, there's no consequences for anything. We can just get rid of all the bad things that we hear we don't like. So I think it's critical that we are smart and informative and make sure that we explain a lot of these things a lot more and not just take them for granted. There's a lot that I think the government doesn't do well or effectively, in fact, most of it. But I don't think that that means you throw the baby out with the bathwater every time. And that's what the DSA is doing, Like we're just gonna give everyone free healthcare. It's okay, okay, what does that mean. It's the budget impact to that, and. 00:43:02 Speaker 4: It's freestep populism. It's something Charlie warned about, and it's completely alluring and intoxicating and it's deductive. It doesn't work, and that's the big problem. But I think what this guy is getting at, it's almost like they're following the right wing critique, the right wing populist critique. One of the things we say on this show all the time is that the Senate has broken. Mike Lee says, the Senate has broken. We just had Senator Eric Schmidt. He's saying the Senate is broken. 00:43:24 Speaker 5: And so these. 00:43:24 Speaker 4: Institutions are essentially falling down on the job, and they're giving an opening for these radical left wing lunatics that are importing foreign ideologies, foreign tribalism, and foreign communism into the American system. They're giving them an opening because they're not doing their job. They're allowing the Senate to get completely bogged down in procedural and parliamentary issues. 00:43:46 Speaker 5: So I don't know if you have a thought on that. 00:43:48 Speaker 6: Yeah, well, we just spoke to Senator Eric Schmidt about the say back, that's past the House, it's waiting on the Senate. If Americans here over and over again, we could have this change that seems desirable, except the Senate's in a way. They'll blow up the Senate and America will be we can't go back from that. 00:44:05 Speaker 14: Well, and that's right clear. 00:44:06 Speaker 5: I don't think they have the power to overturn the Senate right now, Sean, because it's pretty ingrained. No, no, no, but they're changing the Overton window. 00:44:14 Speaker 14: Yeah, correct, not just that, but also like you know, maybe you get rid of one piece, you know, you start to chip away, and there's things like I remember ten years ago laughing at the notion of pronouns like are you insane? This is like the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Who would have thought, I mean, just stop and think about you talk about the Overton window shifting, the idea that we're having a debate about what a woman is, and and the chancellor of U see San Francisco, I think it was testified in front of Congress this week and said, I will admit this is again he's the chancellor of university that the majority of births happened to women. And I'm like, nope, not the majority, but the idea that that is even something that can that is a discussion is insane. And so when I say I'm warning people, it's if you said to me ten years ago we'd be having this debate, I would tell you are nuts. And we're now having this debate, and I go, just trust me, it's inching towards us. 00:45:12 Speaker 3: Well. 00:45:13 Speaker 4: And if you think that sounds extreme, all of a sudden pack in the Supreme Court doesn't seem so crazy anymore. Hi folks, Andrew Colvett here, I'd like to tell you about my friends over at why Refi. You've probably been hearing me talk about why Refi for some time. 00:45:28 Speaker 8: Now. 00:45:28 Speaker 4: We are all in with these guys. If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call. Maybe you're behind on your payments, maybe you're even in default. You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore. Why Refy will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back. We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan that many of them don't even know how much they owe. Why ref I can help. Just go to y refi dot com. That's the letter why then refi dot com And remember why ref I doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to y refi dot com and tell them your friend Andrews sent you. All Right, Sean, this feels like a very Sean Spicer question because you know you're in the Beltway you're in the swamp sean and uh, it's just too funny. 00:46:28 Speaker 5: I had to bring it up. 00:46:29 Speaker 4: So Joe Biden is coming out with a memoir after the I have to play the clip. 00:46:34 Speaker 5: I'm sorry in advance. 00:46:35 Speaker 14: Oh no, any wait, it's a trailer, right, not a clip. He did a trailer. 00:46:40 Speaker 5: It's the trailer. It's a trailer. Yes, he did this. 00:46:43 Speaker 4: Somehow they got him awake for at least thirty minutes to do this up thirty. 00:46:52 Speaker 16: Because that's the presidency. I've had a lot of people ask me, Joe, what have you been doing. I've written a book about my timers president. It's called Promise Me America. It's about to challenge we face as a nation about the decisions I made why I made them. Leading in the country through COVID, rebuilding our economy and restoring our democracy after the attack on January sixth, any in our nation's longest war in Afghanistan, strengthening NATA, and supporting Ukraine. It's about why I chose to run for re election and why I chose to step aside. 00:47:35 Speaker 2: I hope who read it, and I hope it strengthens your faith in what we can do. 00:47:39 Speaker 16: Is a nation and a people. 00:47:43 Speaker 5: You know, I want to book. 00:47:44 Speaker 4: It's called Promise Me America, but it should be titled opposite. Like anything he suggests why he did something, do the opposite of it. 00:47:53 Speaker 5: It should be the opposite book. Go ahead, Blake. 00:47:54 Speaker 3: I want to. 00:47:55 Speaker 6: See President Biden ambushed somewhere and someone just asks him what is said in this book? 00:48:03 Speaker 14: Yeah, yeah, that's that's the Well. The reason why that's an important question is he didn't write it and he didn't read it, and the video's painful to watch. I mean, look, here's the deal. I I'm dead serious when I say I'm in political junkie, Like I'll read anything. I read Currn John Pierre's book. I'm the person. I'm the guy. So that that sale that she got, uh, I mean yeah, I read Hunter's book by the way too, So I'll read anything, and I won't read that. That's a joke. I mean, let's be honest. There's no one in their right mind that believes that he wrote it, that he knows what's in it. 00:48:43 Speaker 2: So like that. 00:48:45 Speaker 14: That's But the the other thing is I made the point at the at the top Andrew about it being a trailer for a reason because a trailer, like we see him all the time for movies. Is meant to get people excited, like go watch this movie. Tom Cruise flies off of nowon air playing and whatever he jumps off, like wow, I gotta go see it, right, I don't think that did it that. That scares me to think that he could have likes that's an edited Hollywood trailer and he sounds like I I literally I will I will do this, play it again, and you guys try to uh annotate it for me. I didn't understand how. 00:49:26 Speaker 2: Joe. 00:49:27 Speaker 14: I'm like, what did he say? And that's the edited version he honestly reaction. What is the first line. 00:49:34 Speaker 5: That he'd I'm not play again. I won't play that again for it again. I can't put our audience through this. 00:49:41 Speaker 14: Do you know how many takes they had to have done. Finally they were like, we'll use that one. We'll use that one. 00:49:46 Speaker 5: Like they got a forty five minute window. That's all they got, Sean. 00:49:49 Speaker 14: And it's just so that's like, look, and this thing got pushed back. Initially, it was supposed to be in September, and I think everybody said, no, you cannot have this come out before the election. We do not need to have another discussion about how how incompetent you were. And also that's again one last thing, one last thing the issues he brings up. I recovered the nation from January sixth? What what was it that you did? Number one? Number two? I led the country through coronavirus, really knowing what we know now you want to take credit for that. I took us out of Afghanistan. Holy, I mean, like, what is missing with this? I also pardoned Hunter. I mean, what what did you he didn't? These are your highlights? Oh my gosh, that's it. 00:50:33 Speaker 5: That's all he's got. That's all he's got, Sean. But interestingly enough, I think that inside is key. 00:50:37 Speaker 4: He's doing it after the midterms because they don't want him to, you know, be a weight on Democrat candidates across the country. We are now back in this conflict with Iran. It's now Connecticut again. We're bombing. It's the MoU is not proceeding at this point. 00:50:54 Speaker 5: Now. 00:50:54 Speaker 4: They said they want to call they released a prisoner. They want to talk again. Okay, fine, talk about you are watching the mid terms very very close. So you got two minutes. The floor is yours. What are our chances, what do you predicts going to happen? 00:51:08 Speaker 14: All right, So look, here's what I'll tell you about Iran. Iran is politically there's no upsides, zero, not whatever. President Trump did this for the right reasons. I believe that making sure that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon and making sure that the threat of Iran stays on their shores not ours is the right, right policy decision. It wasn't a political decision. It's the kind of thing you do as president for the good of the country, and he did the right thing politically speaking. There's three things that Republicans need to do. One, tell us what you did? What did you do to make our lives better? Why are we in the place that we are now? Two, what will you do to make our lives even better? More, better, better or or if that's a phrase. And then three is remind us the downside of the alternative, which is the Democratic Party, and how bad they would be and how crazy their policies are. They need to do that and that's the only thing they should do. Now, why do we have what do we have in our favor? Redistricting that picks up about twelve to fourteen seats that gives us I mean, like anything else. Twelve to fourteen right off the goal right, So that's how many points we have on the board. That helps us too. We have a massive financial advantage in terms of money raised, and the Supreme Court gave us a huge win last week. And three. The Democrats are in massive disarrays we discussed just a minute ago in terms of their socialist tendencies. We are in good shape. I have the Senate right now. Republicans keep it. It might be fifty two, it might be fifty one, but we keep it in the house right now. I've got us at two hundred and twelve seats, which means we're six short of taken the majority. We have eighteen seats in play, meaning Republicans need to win one of every three seats to maintain a majority. I like those odds, especially with the advantages that I just pushed out. Anyone who tells you that it's a foregone conclusion is a moron, does not understand how it all works. Anyone who tells you in leads by historically speaking is admitting their ignorance to how politics works. We have a massive financial advantage. We have a masters's registricting advantage and the Dems are in disarray. I'm not saying we're going to keep it, but I think we have a really good chance. 00:53:04 Speaker 4: Just keep rolling those DSA clips on every ad. 00:53:08 Speaker 5: Sean Spicer, thank you, my friend. We'll see me back. 00:53:10 Speaker 14: Guys, pay care. 00:53:14 Speaker 4: Good conversation is about respect. It's how we create a space where people are able to share their ideas and be heard. Charlie knew that Turning Points still knows that, and TikTok has always strived to build the kind of place that thrives on respectful connection, where curiosity fuels connection and we can share what's on our minds and learn from each other. When ideas meet respect, good things happen. On TikTok. You can find a mechanic explaining the why behind a problem most of us wouldn't even know how to name, or a father sharing a lifetime of knowledge with his viewers. Viewers who listen discuss, and then they respond. TikTok turns connection into community through small acts of understanding. You can feel it in the comments and the thank you from a stranger halfway across the world. TikTok is a place where respect opens the door for discussion and discussion helps us spilled something real. Joining us now is Alex Marlowe. He is the host of The Alex marlow Show an editor in chief of bright Bart. 00:54:10 Speaker 5: You gotta check out bright Bart. I check it every day all the time. Welcome back to the show, Alex. 00:54:14 Speaker 17: Andrew, thanks for having me, Thanks for pluging Breitbart and Blake. 00:54:17 Speaker 2: Great to see you. 00:54:17 Speaker 17: I got to say I was looking at doing a traffic analysis, which is a painful part of the job. I just want to live in the headlines all day. But I gotta tell you we're tonning it on our app. So those of you who have the bright bart app, please thank you because you guys are there and hanging out. And if you don't have the app, then I highly recommend it because clearly there's a massive audience there that it was. I was pleasantly surprised at how many people are on that app all day. So bright bart app for all your latest headlines. 00:54:42 Speaker 5: This is news to you. You're just realizing how popular. 00:54:45 Speaker 2: I didn't realize. It's just how popular the app was. 00:54:47 Speaker 4: I know it's I don't actually use the app, so yeah, this is news to me. 00:54:52 Speaker 5: I don't use the app. I just I just go to the website I got. 00:54:55 Speaker 17: I go straight to the website to check it in on my desktop. My favorite way is the on my desktop, just to read the and then put my phone away. But a lot of people love that phone app, so I thank you. 00:55:06 Speaker 6: I feel like it's such a dinosaur. I use basically no apps for anything. I don't even use the Gmail app. I go to my online app and I go to Gmail dot com and I read all this. 00:55:16 Speaker 2: This is why I brought it up. 00:55:17 Speaker 17: This is why I brought it up because that's how I do my email. 00:55:20 Speaker 2: That's how I don't want to use the app. 00:55:22 Speaker 17: But apparently a lot of you guys do, and thank you, and apparently people like it. 00:55:26 Speaker 2: Go over there, so please use the app. 00:55:27 Speaker 4: We have a Charlie kirkshow app that a lot of people use to we do and I don't ever talk about it, so check that out as well. I want to play this clip and let's talk about it because it's being promoted. This press conference by President Trump tonight is kind of a big deal, a big line in the sand. We know it's central to the President's mission to clean up our elections. 00:55:46 Speaker 5: It to thirty two. 00:55:48 Speaker 18: It's good to see you, good to be in this room. I'm glad everybody showed up today. Let's get back to work. We're going to begin with a few scheduling announcements tonight, as you all know, at nine o'clock PM Eastern, President Trump will deliver a major rest to the nation on protecting the integrity of our elections. 00:56:04 Speaker 4: So that was the first thing she said coming back to the podium at the White as White House Press Secretary Alex I'm hesitant to expect too much because I've been so disappointed on this front so many times. I think it's something everybody in this audience is willing to acknowledge. We have problems in our election. Just look at Spencer Pratt in LA. Look at so many issues too big to rig. We believe that Trump won despite shenanigans. We might have lost some Senate seats because of shenanigans, especially in the Upper Midwest. 00:56:33 Speaker 5: What are you expecting? What are you hearing about tonight's presser. 00:56:36 Speaker 17: Yeah, he is a man who takes election integrity very seriously. It's interesting because you guys have been kind to promote over and over again my last book, Breaking the law where I go through all these cases against President Trump, and a lot of them were kind of predicated on him thinking it was sort of an act that he was fired up about twenty twenty being stolen, that people thought that there was just something he was using to manipulate. But he is unequivocally convinced that that election got stolen from him. It's not a joke. He's not faking it. This is not some sort of a calculation. That he really believes it, and so that is core to his being because I think he feels like that cascade of not being president massive humiliation. All of the lawsuits, the j six, kangaroo court, all of that came from that election getting stolen, and when you see the. 00:57:24 Speaker 2: Math, it just doesn't add up. 00:57:25 Speaker 17: I could do all the list of Biden getting a record level of votes, the Mark Zuckerberg drop boxes, which looks like they've since made up over that, which is interesting. But so many improprieties in that election and all the things in Georgia where all of a sudden they were accepting all these ballots they never would have accepted until weeks before when the rules were changed. All these improprieties. Trump is thinking we got to stop this. And then you see case after case after case, all these Democrats lately admitting they'll never win another election if they have voter ID, at least not in the swing states, if you have to bring a voter ID to the polls. 00:57:57 Speaker 2: And then you look at. 00:57:57 Speaker 17: California where I'm at, where they mail out ballots to people who are ineligible to vote. The craziest thing you could ever imagine. If you want to have election integrity, we proactively give ballots to ineligible people. Trump is looking at all that and saying, we got to do something or else. I'm not as successful as. 00:58:15 Speaker 5: I can be. 00:58:16 Speaker 4: Yeah, on that note, let's go ahead and play this. I want to play this earlier. I'm going to do it now. And this is Joe Rogan to JD Vance on the California elections, specifically Spencer Pratt top five. 00:58:26 Speaker 5: Well, it's just. 00:58:28 Speaker 10: Very disheartening that you have to consider the fact that it's really possible that the elections get stolen, and the California one was a big one for me. 00:58:40 Speaker 19: I'm not every country does it. I'm not skeptical. I'm accusing them. I think they stole the elections, yes, and I think it's common, and I you know, this idea that elections can't be stolen. I always say to people, Okay, do you think that the amount of election fraud is zero percent? No one thinks that, And I think they cheat, and I think they've been done it forever. And I don't think there's any other reason why you would have no voter. 00:59:07 Speaker 9: Id watching that. 00:59:09 Speaker 6: I just think about I'd have this conversation with Charlie and with others, And as you said, do you think it's zero percent? Well, if it's not zero percent, where's it coming from? And so much of it is. Yet, if you're sending ballots to ineligible people, or you're sending ballots to just literally anyone, and you're allowing people to be paid to get people to sign up, paid to collect ballots, people can harvest as many ballots as they want. You're decentralizing the process. And I think that's the real secret weapon that democrats have benefited from, is when they can decentralize the process of potential fraud. 00:59:45 Speaker 9: Like mail ballots. 00:59:46 Speaker 6: You send a mail ballot to everyone, and someone goes and they fill out all of their family's ballots. They nag them to sign it they hand it to a harvester, turn it in. That is illegal behavior, That is a crime. Is that a crime that's ever going to be prosecuted. Definitely not in the state of California. And when you play that out all over the country, you leave people with a process that they feel they can't trust. Oh, and they're collecting ballots of course in days and weeks after the official election day. They have a process they don't trust. They have a process where there's little bits here and there that you can insert votes that shouldn't be counted, and people don't trust it. And the President is so correct to fight for a process that not only makes fraud harder, but especially looks like it is a lot less fraudulent and fairer or otherwise people are gonna check out and think it's all all fake. 01:00:37 Speaker 2: I got to say that watching this clip. 01:00:39 Speaker 17: Yeah, JD had a great JD had a great response where he said, well, if you guys think there's no fraud, then just let us have the IDs and then we'll feel better about it. 01:00:46 Speaker 2: Then you can prove how all of us are wrong, which that was a great point. 01:00:48 Speaker 17: But if you look at it and they do it in California id's are banned like you can't even you can't even show them. 01:00:53 Speaker 2: Homeless are obviously paid to vote. There's no way to stop that is happening. 01:00:56 Speaker 17: Ballad harvesting where people allowed to collect votes, so you don't even have to go and go to get to a mailbox to be able to vote, so the least interested people are voting. There's ballot curing, so there's any mistakes, you can then fix your vote quote unquote mistakes. We count ballots long after election day. The signature verification is non existent. Voter roles don't ever get depleted and audited. It's non stop, every single place where you could find fraud. And this is why Blake's point is the most important point you can make is the decentralization. There's so many ways and moments where you can interfere and cheat, and that's why they like that system because they know it'd take a herculean effort to police solve it. So we need to have much more standardization and make it sure that there are fewer fail points, fewer points where you're in a scenario where someone can manipulate. 01:01:40 Speaker 6: One of the biggest ones that stands out to me and I just remember this. Think about the number of people we have in care homes, people getting dementia, Alzheimer's, people who clearly do not really have the ability to know what ballot they're casting. What we've had endless suspicious cases where a lot of ballots have been collected from a care home. You can imagine these terrors going on. Who do you want to have a vote? Oh, I can help you fill out this ballot. You're always allowed to help people fill out ballots. You can provide interpreters on ballots, one of the most obvious ways. And are we going to be able to have investigators go and police every nursing home, prosecute every nurse or caregiver who does something suspicious. There's so much of that out there, and it says everything that Democrats are just going to put their hand down say there's no problem. We're not going to look for a problem. We're going to claim there's no problems, specifically because we don't investigate, and then we can say, oh, no one, no one ever gets convicted of this since we don't investigate for it. It's it's just such a giant travesty and a sham and a lot of the people where we. 01:02:40 Speaker 4: Came from as a country. Yeah, when we come where we came from as a country, where we had you know, the vote was sacricynct, it was landed gentry. And then and then we push forward this whole universal suffrage movement, and now it's sort of like, well, even you know, immigrants should be able to vote. I mean, the bestation of how much value we place in a vote. And the disenfranchisement of actual Americans because we can't trust our own elections is truly a civic sin. I mean, it really, really is such a sin. And I totally applaud the President. I back his play one thousand percent on this and jd Vance's in this, because if we cannot trust our own elections, then the whole thing's a sham. And the fact that they are admitting openly that they will not be able to win elections in some places if they don't have these loose standards is as a pure and unadulterated indictment of their own position. They are cheating, they are rigging the game. This is what they've been doing for decades, and they're getting called in account. And I'm listening to I was in the break I was listening to some of these questions from uh yeah, I forget his name, Garrett from NBC. I've actually met Garrett, nice guy, but he's asking why won't Trump drop this? He won in twenty twenty four. We won despite your cheating. We won despite it, and it's the problem is not anywhere near to being fixed. And the fact they play dumb on this and act like we're bunch of looney tune conspiracy theorists because we're still asking questions is just absolutely nuts because there's a lot there. There's a lot there. There is a lot there, especially when it comes to election integrity. All right, So, Alex, you were at the Defense Innovation Summit in PA yesterday. Trump spoke at that. You did a great job covering it. But this question came up earlier in the show with Senator Eric Schmidt. A lot of people are talking about this two nineteen section two nineteen of the NDAA, this proposed cooperative with is Israel on intelligence and defense. Have you looked into this at all and do you have a perspective on it? This is not an anti Israel sentiment for me at all. Actually, it just feels like something we shouldn't be doing in general. I mean, we've already proven that we can coordinate with the Israelis very effectively when it came to Iran. 01:04:52 Speaker 5: Why do we need to go in deeper? That's my question. 01:04:55 Speaker 17: Yeah, I think that that's always a reasonable question. I think that a lot of people that I talked to within the the White House who are not necessarily buddied up with a lot of the people who dominate the podcast space, I really do say that the intelligence we get from the Israelis is second to none. 01:05:11 Speaker 2: It is the top that we can get. 01:05:14 Speaker 17: And I've been very critical of their pr as was Charlie over the last year. 01:05:18 Speaker 2: I think they've not been helpful. 01:05:20 Speaker 17: In the Iran war in general, but I maintain overall, people on the inside tell me that their intelligence is it is the best, and doing things to facilitate getting that intelligence. It doesn't really have to do necessarily with what you think personally of net Yahoo and how he's running his government. And I think that that's an important thing to think about contextually. But it is always good to re appraise allies and adversaries, and Trump is amazing at this, and I think he's been really wise to do this, and it comes from I think him having a open heart and open mind to certain things. Just the thought that Saudi Arabia and Qatar would be close allies with us ten years ago would have been unthinkable, and then now we're here, and I. 01:05:58 Speaker 2: Think that's a benefit. 01:05:58 Speaker 17: And it also puts some heath on his threats to countries like NATO, where if you think we're friends, then you better behave like friends. Georgia Maloney, we love you, but if you're not gonna let us use bases when we're doing a strategic bombing of Iran, he's not gonna forget that and there's gonna be consequences. And I love that posture. So anything that reevaluates stuff, I'm always cool with it. But is really intelligence pretty good? 01:06:20 Speaker 5: Yeah? 01:06:21 Speaker 4: No, I think it's good. But we already cooperate with them. We already are, you know, very closely in connection. We communicate well, we're obviously we're capable of launching very effective strikes in Iran. Why do we need to further sort of connect the dots behind the scenes or develop tech when it seems like why fix if it ain't broken? And I've asked my sources, and a lot of people don't see that there is a problem I don't understand. And there is some indication that Benjamin and Yaho's the one advancing this. Yeah, you were gonna chime in there. 01:06:52 Speaker 3: Yeah. 01:06:52 Speaker 17: I just am curious who are the best fokes people for it and against it, because it seems like a lot of Thomas Massey Rocan people who are always trying to get in front of a microphone or behind a keyboard to rage about Israel. It seems like those are the guys who are are the biggest, the most vocal people. So I'm trying to see who's going to emerge and make a really not a necessarily a social media friendly case, but like a serious case one way or the other. 01:07:15 Speaker 2: And I don't know who to turn to in that at the moment. 01:07:18 Speaker 4: Yeah, and I've heard that one of them. Lady, if the thoughts are yeah, go ahead, Blake. 01:07:23 Speaker 5: Go ahead, then. 01:07:28 Speaker 6: Come on twenty seconds, Blake, you're putting me on the spire' putting me on the spire I just want I just want our government that we should just be able. 01:07:36 Speaker 9: To say I put America first. 01:07:38 Speaker 6: I think America is the priority, and you should not get blown up by too many people. 01:07:43 Speaker 9: If you do that, that's what I would. 01:07:45 Speaker 2: Say, America first time. 01:07:46 Speaker 5: I don't know what that means, but America first second. Endorse Alex Mihilo. God bless you man. We'll see you soon. 01:07:53 Speaker 2: Thanks, guys fine. 01:07:58 Speaker 17: For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to Charlikirk dot com