The Fury Continues + The Clintons Before Congress + Primary Day in Texas

00:00:03 Speaker 1: My name is Charlie Kirk. 00:00:05 Speaker 2: 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. Go start atturning point, you say, high school chapter. Go find out how your church can get involved. 00:00:37 Speaker 3: Sign up and become an activist. 00:00:39 Speaker 2: 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. Here I am. 00:00:46 Speaker 3: Lord, Use me. 00:00:48 Speaker 2: Buckle up, everybody, Here we go. The Charlie Kirk Show is proudly sponsored by Preserved Gold, leading gold and silver experts and the only precious metals company I recommend to my family, friends and viewers. 00:01:09 Speaker 4: All right, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show. It is March third. 00:01:14 Speaker 3: Welcome, Blake howdy. 00:01:16 Speaker 4: So I have been publicly calling for the administration to sell this war more fully, to give us a more comprehensive explanation of why why do we strike? Why do we strike now? Against Iran? Blake, you had been doing the same, you'd been noting the same. I got a bunch of calls from reporters yesterday asking, you know, do I feel like the Admin's done a sufficient job? 00:01:41 Speaker 3: Well, guess what. 00:01:43 Speaker 4: You do not have to be necessarily in favor of what's going on in Iran to admit that. Yesterday they added a lot more detail to the sales pitch, and I think that's good. They should be forced to explain kinetic use of US military forces in the Middle East, absolutely, and to explain the why we deserve that. So we're gonna go through this, and I will. We're gonna have Sean Davis on from the Federalists, specifically. 00:02:10 Speaker 3: On the quote from Rubio. 00:02:12 Speaker 4: That seemed to really cause a bunch of headlines yesterday, explaining he kind of had a three three part answer, and in one of those it seemed to suggest that we got involved because Israel was gonna act, and if Israel act, they were gonna shoot US anyway, so we might as well preemptively. 00:02:29 Speaker 3: Attack I run. 00:02:31 Speaker 4: So we'll get into that. But there's more layers than just that clip. Now, by the way, Trump has just responded he's doing a bilat with the Chancellor of Germany currently, and we're gonna also later in the hour break down the difference between France, Germany, Spain and the UK UK the UK. 00:02:52 Speaker 3: So anyways, here we go. 00:02:53 Speaker 4: Let's start with Steve Whitcoff. Remember now, Steve Whitcoff was negotiating alongside Jared Kushner as we were hoping for a diplomatic solution to this Iranian issue, and Steve what Wickoff dropped an absolute bombshell last night on Sean Hannity's show three ninety five. 00:03:11 Speaker 5: In that first meeting, both the Iranian negotiators said to us directly, with no shame, that they controlled four hundred and sixty kilograms of sixty percent and they're aware that that could make eleven nuclear bombs. And that was the beginning of the negotiating stance. So that's they were proud of it. They were proud that they had evaded all sorts of oversight protocols to get to a place where they could deliver eleven nuclear bombs. 00:03:43 Speaker 4: All right, So eleven nuclear bombs instantly blake your mind went to weapons and masters exactly. 00:03:49 Speaker 6: Now, that's a strong claim. 00:03:51 Speaker 7: If it's true, that's a very strong point in favor of the administration's position, which is they're just clearly endlessly going to pursue this very dangerous thing. 00:04:00 Speaker 6: But we have been around this sort of thing. 00:04:04 Speaker 3: Before, We've seen this movie before heavies, and. 00:04:10 Speaker 7: It will be desirable, It will be good if we can find a bunch of enriched uranium in the rubble of these facilities eventually. Of course, we also don't want ground troops to go looking for it. 00:04:19 Speaker 3: Yep. 00:04:19 Speaker 4: So well, and listen, I'll explain why I think this is different, and that is because this was direct witness, eyewitness. This wasn't relying on intelligence or you know, some ideologue that's trying to find intelligence where none exists in field. This is apparently Steve Whitcoff and Jared Kushner sitting across the table from negotiators, and they bragged about it. 00:04:42 Speaker 3: That's a little bit different. 00:04:43 Speaker 4: Now if that's proven to be false, and that they were just lying to maybe strengthen their negotiating position. That's also telling, but it doesn't mean that he's lying, right, It doesn't mean that Steve Whitcoff is lying here, and it's an important data point. I So, I you know, listen, I've seen Matt Walsh's arguments that, hey, if the four to Zho strikes were so successful, why did we need to go in again? And I disagree with only that point. I agree with a lot of what Walsh was saying in that tweet. But here's the deal. A dog backed in the corner is more likely to bite. They realized that their time was ticking right that. You know, President Trump had this line saying this was the last best chance to do this. 00:05:26 Speaker 3: Okay, So, and that. 00:05:27 Speaker 4: Seems to basically be in sync with what Marco Rubio then said. Right, So, Marco Rubio comes to the podium and says, I know, I don't know why there's all this confusion about this. 00:05:37 Speaker 3: You know, I think we've made the case. 00:05:39 Speaker 4: Well I didn't think they've made the case, but I liked that he was addressing it, So kudos to him. Let's start with reason number one for twenty. 00:05:46 Speaker 8: The United States is conducting an operation to eliminate the threat of Iran's short range ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their navy, particularly to enable assets. That is what it is focused on doing right now, and it's doing quite successfully. Leave it to the Pentagon and the Department of Ward to discussed the tactics behind that and the progress that's being made. That is the clear objective of dismission, all. 00:06:08 Speaker 4: Right, So he says, the objective is to take out the ballistic missiles and. 00:06:13 Speaker 3: The naval threat. 00:06:14 Speaker 4: Okay, when we talk about the Strait of horn Moves, this all becomes very clear. About twenty percent of of the world's energy flows through the Strait of horror Moose. About fourteen to fifteen percent of all trade goes through the Strait of horm Moose. So he continues reason number two for twenty one. 00:06:30 Speaker 8: So it was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone, the United States or Israel or anyone, they were going to respond and respond against the United States. 00:06:39 Speaker 9: The orders had. 00:06:40 Speaker 8: Been delegated down to the field commanders. It was automatic, and in fact it bear to be true because in fact, within an hour of the initial attack on the Leadership Compound, the. 00:06:52 Speaker 3: Missile forces in the South and in. 00:06:54 Speaker 8: The North for that matter, had already been activated to launch in fact, those that already been prepositioned. 00:07:00 Speaker 4: Okay, So he makes the point that we were going to get attack no matter what happened automatically, that that had already been communicated down to the field commanders. Okay, he continues, reason number three, four twenty four. 00:07:10 Speaker 8: So the assessment that was made that if we stood and waited for that attack to come first, before we hit them, we would suffer much higher casualties. And so the President made the very wise decision. We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even those killed, and then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and didn't act. 00:07:39 Speaker 4: All right, So, I know this is a little bit clip heavy, but this was literally a four part answer that he gave. 00:07:45 Speaker 3: This is reason number four. 00:07:48 Speaker 4: I guess you would say it's really three reasons he said three, but it's really fourth reason and he talks about now this conventional weapon shield that would make them immune for many threats in the future to become too dangerous to attack them four thirty two. 00:08:04 Speaker 8: Why does Iron want that blistic missile capability? What they are trying to do and have been trying to do for a very long time, is build a conventional weapons capability as a shield where they can. 00:08:14 Speaker 1: Hide behind it. 00:08:15 Speaker 8: Meaning there would come a point where they have so many conventional missiles, so many drones, and it can inflict so much damage that no one can do anything about their nuclear program. That is what they were trying to do, is put themselves in a place of immunity where the damage they can inflict on the region would be so high that no one can do anything about their nuclear program or their nuclear ambitions. They are producing, by some estimates, over one hundred of these missiles a month. Compare that to the six or seven interceptors that can be built a month. They can build one hundred of these a month, not to mention the thousands of one way attack drones that they also have. They've been doing this for a very long time, and by the way, they've been doing it under sanction. 00:08:53 Speaker 7: Well, we got a lot of clips there, and so we've heard that they had a giant pile of uranium and they were going. 00:08:59 Speaker 6: To go for a bomb. We've heard all these ballistic. 00:09:01 Speaker 7: Missiles, and we heard Israel was going to attack anyway, so we felt we had to join or there would be more casualties. There's gonna be a lot of discussion about that one, for sure. We want to hear from all of you. Do you think the arguments have been strong or not. We want to hear from the base about. 00:09:17 Speaker 4: This freedom at Charlie kirkdot you cos we'll take a look at those. 00:09:22 Speaker 3: This year. 00:09:23 Speaker 4: It marks a very critical moment in our country's history. As the opposition grows more aggressive and unapologetic and insane. The fight now reaches into everyday decisions we make. Patriot Mobile has been standing on the front lines fighting for freedom for more than twelve years. They don't just deliver top tier wireless service, which they do, but they're activists like me, like Turning Point, who truly care about our country. Patriot Mobile offers prioritized premium access on all three major US networks, giving you the same or better coverage than the main carriers. That means fast speeds and dependable nationwide coverage backed by one hundred percent US customer support. They also offer unlimited data plans, mobile hotspots, international roaming, and more. With simple seamless activation, you can switch in minutes, keep your number, keep your phone, or upgrade. And here's the difference. When you switch to Patriot Mobile, you'll be part of a powerful stream of giving that directly funds the Christian conservative movement. 00:10:19 Speaker 2: Called nine seven two Patriot today, or wrote to Patriot Mobile dot com slash Charlie, used promo code Charlie for a free month of service. That's Patriotmobile dot com slash Charlie, or call nine seven two Patriot and make the switch today. 00:10:33 Speaker 4: Joining us now is Sean Davis, CEO and co founder of The Federalist. Very Smart Man, Sean, welcome back to the show. My friend, you and I were talking last night because you had this tweet. 00:10:46 Speaker 3: I thought it was very. 00:10:47 Speaker 4: Very smartly worded, and you quoted kind of a famous quote that you know says there's always two reasons that a man does something. One the reason he states out loud, and then the real reason. And you were referring to Rubio's statement about why we went into war, and he made this comment. We already played it earlier. 00:11:07 Speaker 3: You said. 00:11:08 Speaker 4: He said that, you know, we knew Israel was going to strike, and so we knew that America was going to hit when they did, when the America was going to get hit when they did that, so we decided to preemptively attack. Did Israel sort of to use the parlance dog walk us into this war? 00:11:26 Speaker 3: Or is there more to the story. 00:11:28 Speaker 1: Yeah, well, it's interesting. There seems to have been a bit of a walk back from what Rubio said, from what Johnson said after him. I think from what Cotton said this morning, what we've read in some news reports, Trump in the Oval office today said no, no, no, if anyone got anyone into this war, it was us getting Israel into the war. I wouldn't. I don't know if I would personally say dog walk. I get why some people might. I think it is a complicated situation. We have intertwining interests with Israel. They're an ally and they're friend. We also at times have some contradictory interests. There may be things they want to do that aren't great for us, and vice versa. But I actually think it's great for it to be out there that hey, we're not out there acting on our own. This was not all us nor is Israel out there all acting on their own. They had interests, we had interest We were working together to do this. It's been odd to me to see so many people recoil that that reality being laid out, like oh, that didn't happen, or oh, you're not allowed to say that. Well, multiple people said that, I think we should have an open conversation about how we're doing things in the Middle East and in whose interests they are. 00:12:39 Speaker 3: Yeah. 00:12:40 Speaker 4: Well, and by the way, you mentioned this clip, it just happened with the Chancellor of Germany. So let's go ahead and play it four thirty seven. 00:12:47 Speaker 9: And it's real force your hand. 00:12:49 Speaker 1: To launch these stress against the. 00:12:51 Speaker 9: Wrong the United States. 00:12:54 Speaker 10: No, I might have forced their hand. You see. We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first. They were going to attack if we didn't do it, they were going to attack first. 00:13:09 Speaker 11: I fell strongly about that. 00:13:10 Speaker 10: And we have great negotiators, great people, people that do this very successfully and have done it all their lives, very successful, and based on the way the negotiation was going. I think they were going to attack first, and I didn't want that to happen. So if anything, I might have forced Israel's hand. But Israel was ready and we were ready, and we've had a very very powerful impact. 00:13:36 Speaker 4: All right, So I'm gonna throw it to Blake now because I just put you on the spot, Shohn Blake, What do you make of this? Is it just a complex situation where both both things can sort of be true at the same time. 00:13:47 Speaker 6: Well, I don't know. 00:13:49 Speaker 7: I think truthfully, what I lean towards with what the President said is the President very much never. 00:13:55 Speaker 6: Wants to suggest he was influenced. 00:13:57 Speaker 7: He's always the driver of events, he's always the pilotive actions in a lot of ways he is. 00:14:01 Speaker 6: He's such a. 00:14:03 Speaker 7: Active force throughout everything. But at the same time, I do feel like, you know, Rubio didn't say that for no reason, but it comes within layers here because it could be that the President got on board with a this some sort of war with Iran months ago. I mean, we were obviously building up towards it for ages, and then there was disagreement on specific timing, specific actions, And you know, I don't I don't really want a hard commit on a specific answer, because I suspect a lot of stuff will come out in the days and weeks, months, years to come. 00:14:38 Speaker 6: This will be dissected over and over again. 00:14:41 Speaker 3: And if you. 00:14:42 Speaker 7: Look at like the Iraq War when it happened, there was a lot of false stuff about the Iraq War when it unfolded, and we only really came to understand it years later. 00:14:50 Speaker 4: Yeah, and I would say this, just because something is in that something is good for Israel, doesn't mean that's the reason why we did it. So America could make a decison that is that our leaders determined isn't our national security interest and it might be good for Israel, but that might not be the driving force, right, So both things could could in theory be true at the same time. I wanted to play this clip really quick, Sean, just because I you know, this is an offensive action taken by Israel where they were meeting gathering the religious leaders to pick a new Ayahtola, a new supreme leader, and they apparently have not figured out zoom yet. 00:15:30 Speaker 3: So three ninety four. 00:15:31 Speaker 12: I'm told by a senior Israeli official that the Israelis just struck the Supreme Council gathering where the Iranians were meeting to choose a new supreme leader. This is a significant development and again speaks to the Israeli intelligence about this war. They just targeted the meeting in Tikhran where what's left of the leadership was gathering to choose a new supreme leader. 00:15:57 Speaker 7: I feel like they could have you know, we're usually against mail voting. I think I would have if I were Iranian, I would have approved. 00:16:09 Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly. 00:16:10 Speaker 4: I mean, but it goes to show the the lengths at which Massad has infiltrated the Iranian infrastructure inside the country. They seem to know where these guys are at at all time. There's that famous clip I don't know if you've seen it, Sean, where ak Medinajad is talking about they you know, they developed this this task force to go after Massad and root out Massad within the Iranian ranks, only to find out that the head of that task force was a Massad agent. 00:16:37 Speaker 3: So I mean, whoops. 00:16:38 Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, you listen, you don't have to love this conflict, you don't have to be in support of it, but you know, hat tip where it's due, credit where it's due. 00:16:47 Speaker 13: Uh. 00:16:48 Speaker 4: The talents are on full display here. You have you just have to sort of acknowledge that much. 00:16:53 Speaker 1: The one thing I actually love about the the Israelis in the Brits is, unlike us, they kind of never abandon actual human intelligence. We seem overly relying on technology and surveillance. And they've just decided, you know, both the Brits and the Israelis, no, We're going to go in and have people as deep cover assets for decades. There's something we could learn from that. 00:17:14 Speaker 4: Yeah, I totally agree. You made another really good point here, though, Sean. You talked about when we built the Iraqi embassy, which has come under fire now. It was back in two thousand and four, two thousand and five, spent all this money building up an embassy there, and now it's and we've done this throughout the region and now it's a sitting duck that we have to defend. 00:17:34 Speaker 3: What you're thinking here. 00:17:36 Speaker 4: Why was that strategically a mistake? How should we position ourselves in the Middle East. 00:17:41 Speaker 1: Yeah, so a lot of our conversation about what's going on in Iran has been in the vacuum of what's happening there right now. And obviously there are reasons for that. You can't go back in time and reverse things you've already done. But the question I ask is why how were we so vulnerable to Iranian attack over there? It's because we have bases in installationswhere And as I wrote in that tweet, when I worked for Tom Kober in two thousand and five, one of the first amendments he made me do as a staffer was one defunding the Iraqi Embassy, a US embassy in Iraq which hadn't been built yet, something like a billionaire a billion and a half dollars. And he said, look, as soon as you do that, you are permanently in that country for fifty or one hundred years. You're guaranteeing that you're going to be vulnerable, that you're going to have bases that were going to be surrounded by people who hate us. It's a similar issue in Libya, by the way, which I think is a good cautionary example. Gaddafi disarmed in good faith under Bush, and then along in the next term comes Obama and Hillary decides to depose him. They have him thrown out and murdered, and then what happens a couple of years later, we end up because of a secret CIA outpost in there which was helping to traffic arms. They claim it was to take them off the streets, but helping to traffic arms, and then we end up seeing our ambassador, two Navy seals, and an intel expert from State getting killed. It is a logical result when you are so far flung, you have so many people and installations and places surrounded by people that hate us, that you're going to be at risk. And maybe we should be taking a look going forward rather than having to respond and go to war anytime someone over there threatens us. Maybe we just shouldn't be in a position in a lot of these places where we're so easily threatened. 00:19:18 Speaker 4: Final question, Sean, there's been much made about our munition stockpiles. Are you hearing anything President Trump's? 00:19:24 Speaker 3: Would we could? You know we have basically. 00:19:26 Speaker 4: Unlimited Is that what you're hearing? Or is there a certain type of missile that we're more concerned about. 00:19:32 Speaker 1: Well, yeah, this is actually one of the major reasons so many of us were opposed to what we were doing in Ukraine, just giving all of our stockpiles to them without thinking, Hey, what's going to happen to us if we actually need those for our national interests, not just Ukraine's. I think we're starting to see some of that now. I do worry about a lot of interceptor missiles what I call defensive missiles thads that are used to intercept and stop in I mean Iranian missiles. I worried that our allies over there, Uae, Qatar, Bahrain, the Saudi's, these Raelis. I worry about us running low on those a lot more than I worry about us running low on offensive munitions. 00:20:13 Speaker 4: Yeah, and I actually asked, you know, how many of these missiles we can produce a month? 00:20:17 Speaker 3: I was like, we need to ramp it up. 00:20:18 Speaker 4: And apparently we've signed a contract with Boeing recently to double the output. But our current our current output, No, our current output is like sixty a month. I mean that's max max max, like sixty seventy a month. So and they're they're flying, you know, twenty thousand dollars drones at us that we're taking out with a two million dollar missile, and you know, the maths, the maths don't math. Sean Davis excellent analysis. As always, Sean, I must follow on at the Federalists as well as on X. You're always throwing a wrench into the end of the gears and I love it because the contrary thinking is like super super important right now, Sean Davis, excellent work. 00:20:59 Speaker 3: Thank you. We'll see you soon. 00:21:00 Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. 00:21:01 Speaker 4: All right, we asked for your emails freedam at Charliekirk dot com and you delivered. 00:21:05 Speaker 3: Blake, Yeah, let's get. 00:21:06 Speaker 6: A few of them. 00:21:07 Speaker 7: Christopher said, Hello, charliekirkshow the argument has not been made strongly, but islamisterran is the mortal enemy of the US. It's too bad Reagan didn't destroy the Iatolas regime in the nineteen eighties. Now Trump has to clean up Jimmy Carter's giant mess. How about Lindsey says I appreciate Marco's response and explanation. That was enough for me. I trust President Trump. Mark says Charlie would not have questioned Trump. You guys are off the rails. I assure you. We are doing our best to communicate how we think Charlie would have felt through all this. We of course can't know he's not with us. 00:21:48 Speaker 4: Well, listen, I walked with Charlie alongside. So did you Blake about the way Charlie handled Operation Midnight Hammer the lead up to that privately, you know, he obviously expressed his you know, his reticence, and then but he said, you know, honestly, he said, privately and publicly to me, he said, listen, if Trump decides to go, we're going to have his back. 00:22:10 Speaker 3: Okay. I mean that Charlie. 00:22:12 Speaker 4: Worked his butt off, probably harder than anybody else in this country besides Trump himself, to get Trump elected. And listen, I think that we are not questioning Trump's leadership here as instincts, but listen, anytime you go into a regime change situation, there are going to be unintended consequences. And to act like there's not going to be unintended consequences, I think it's foolish. But we have his back, and now that we were going, we're praying for success. We're praying for the security and safety of our troops. I woke up this morning at two thirty because my daughter woke me up, and I just literally started praying for our troops because I'm you know, I was feeling anxiety about it and I want them to be safe. You know, there's six dead servicemen, so listen. We're trying to be We're trying to honor the spirit of Charlie. But obviously we don't know how he would have reacted anybody he would have you know, he's not here right now. 00:23:03 Speaker 6: Yeah, we have some more. 00:23:06 Speaker 7: Kathleen says, I strongly support President Trump's Operation Ian Iran. The ICBMs they were round, the regime was working on, were intended for the US, and President Trump is good at multitasking and working hard to help the American people. He has already done a number of things to help the economy. And she also apparently sent an email about possibly moving to South Dakota. I'm going to have to read that one. I'll get back to you on that one, Kathleen. I am, of course a big fan of that. 00:23:34 Speaker 6: Several others. I think the most common one is a lot of. 00:23:37 Speaker 7: A lot of support, a lot of we trust President Trump, which is what we said is generally what Charlie's point of view would be, we think, which is he would have argued against this going up to it. But if the President hurt him, and the President would listen to him, If the President listened to him and did it anyway, Charlie would give him the grace and trust to say he knows things I don't. He has a good record on these I think that I. 00:23:58 Speaker 4: Think that's a posture would be President Trump has had a good record on not getting as embroiled in Forever Wars. 00:24:04 Speaker 3: Okay, got to give. 00:24:05 Speaker 4: Him a little leash, little room to maneuver here. He's proven himself to be a very adept operator on the world stage. So here's what I want to get into. Now, there's a couple different storylines. There's the oil. How much China is relying on the oil. Maybe we'll get to that now or two if we have a segment. But let's just go around the horn and get the European reaction to the Iranian strikes, because they are varied and it's kind of surprising. 00:24:31 Speaker 3: Honestly. 00:24:31 Speaker 6: I want to. 00:24:32 Speaker 7: Start with the honorary Europeans of Canada because that is the one I find the funniest. 00:24:37 Speaker 6: We've had a lot of friction. 00:24:38 Speaker 3: With there all last year. 00:24:40 Speaker 7: Carney has definitely tried to turn himself into basically the foil, yeah, a foil of Trump, the avatar of being his critic, Like he's talking about, oh, we've realigned, like we can't rely on these old alliances. 00:24:52 Speaker 6: He's shifting hords China. 00:24:53 Speaker 7: And then as soon as this broke out, he puts out a statement that's basically, we support America's. 00:24:59 Speaker 4: Let's start with another one and then too. German Chancellor was just in the White House of President Trump for thirty eight. 00:25:04 Speaker 14: We are on the same page in terms of getting this terrible regime in Tehran. 00:25:12 Speaker 9: Away, and we will talk about the day after what will happen then if they are out. 00:25:19 Speaker 3: Macrone had some strong words for thirty nine. 00:25:24 Speaker 15: The terrant is both robust and efficient. All those who would be bold enough to strike at France, he must be aware of the unbearable cost that it would take on them. 00:25:41 Speaker 4: So he's talking tough, Macrone. The French, they always like to talk tough. And then we'll see how it really plays out. But hey broadly supportive. Ah Kere Starmer is on the list for Trump right now here. 00:25:55 Speaker 3: It is four forty four. 00:25:58 Speaker 16: Mister speaker. We all remember the mistakes of Iraq and we have learned those lessons. Any UK actions must always have a lawful basis and a viable thought through plant. I say again we were not involved in the initial strikes on Iran, and we will not join offensive action now. 00:26:27 Speaker 4: And by the way, so Keir Starmer was not giving access to American basis or a UK basis for American strikes. They have since reversed that decision, but it was with a lot of hemming and hyeing and handwringing, and President Trump is not too happy about it. 00:26:44 Speaker 10: For forty By the way, I'm not happy with the UK either. That island that you read about the lease, okay, he made it for whatever reason, he made a lease of the island. Somebody came and took it away from him. And it's taken three four days for us to work out where we can land. It would have been much more convenient landing there as opposed to flying many extra hours. So we are very surprised. This is not Winston Churchill that we're dealing with. 00:27:16 Speaker 4: He went on to repeat that, by the way, but perhaps the most I don't know, annoying NATO partner would be Spain. Spain denies as four forty three. Spain denies US military use of its bases for Iran attack. The leftist government in Madrid said the war against Iran violated both international law and the agreement between Spain and the United States for use of air bases. Now we actually have like I think two or three in Spain. I know Rhoda is one. These are really complex installations there in Spain. So this is a big deal. President Trump is now threatening to embargo all business that the US does. 00:27:56 Speaker 3: Was very angry. He's very upset. 00:27:58 Speaker 6: I will say I had this thought at first. 00:28:00 Speaker 7: He's known to admire President William McKinley, who, for those of you who don't remember high school his US history, fought the Spanish American War to get Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, and Cuba. 00:28:14 Speaker 3: Yeah. 00:28:14 Speaker 4: Well, and so what's interesting here is that Spain just this is the same leftist government that just I guess legalized essentially a million. They said it was gonna be five hundred thousand immigrants. It's going to be more like a million. So welcome to the new Spain, this leftist You know, elections matter, they have consequences. Spain's about to find out. So all of this is very very interesting to see the varied responses. I'm grateful, oddly enough, to the Chancellor of Germany for being very clear minded, very very firm on this and actually also the mark what sa Ruta of NATO has been very very supportive. 00:28:57 Speaker 3: So lots of. 00:28:58 Speaker 4: Good alliances forming, but to a few that are more suspect. We're gonna keep our eyes on our alliances. 00:29:06 Speaker 7: The online world moves fast, and it's moving even faster these days. That's why TikTok approaches teen safety with families in mind from the start, because discovery and creativity are both wonderful things, but it's important to make sure that safety comes first as well. On TikTok, teenagers have over fifty built in protections right from. 00:29:25 Speaker 6: When they join. 00:29:26 Speaker 7: Accounts routines all start private by default, they're not open to the entire world, and for those under sixteen, direct messages are turned off. Only their friends can comment on their videos. And that kind of approach matters because feeling confident and comfortable about these platforms your teenagers are on shouldn't mean digging through a bunch of menus and trying to set everything up yourself and worrying that you got it wrong. TikTok is taking a proactive approach. Their protections are built in from the moment those teenagers join, so that safety and peace of mind for parents is there right from the start. All of this is to say when safety comes first, discovery and creativity can follow without fear. Learn more by going to TikTok dot com slash guardians Guide. That's TikTok dot com slash guardians Guide. 00:30:16 Speaker 4: We are joined on set by Tyler Boyer, COO of Attorney Point Action. We're going to be going in depth into Texas because tonight is the night the big primary and we have the man himself, Attorney General Ken Paxton, running for US Senate in the great state of Texas. Welcome back to the show, mister Attorney General. It's a big day for you. What are we seeing, what are we thinking? 00:30:39 Speaker 3: You know? 00:30:39 Speaker 9: So good to be back. 00:30:40 Speaker 14: I can remember talking to Charlie about this over a year ago, and it's hard to believe that this day is actually here. 00:30:45 Speaker 9: I think it's going to be a good day. 00:30:47 Speaker 14: I think people have grown weary of a senator who is been claiming to be a Republican but hasn't accomplished anything for our state. 00:30:55 Speaker 9: I've literally traveled this state since April the eighth. I've asked every. 00:30:59 Speaker 14: Single person there was one person or three thousand people. Can you name one great accomplishment of John Cornyn, and even his supporters can't come up with an answer. 00:31:08 Speaker 9: It means it's time for a change. I think the voters are going to do it today. 00:31:11 Speaker 17: Well, Ken, mister Terry general, it's this has been a David versus Goliath fight. This is the most expensive race in Texas history, I think primary race, the primary race. It's ever been. 00:31:25 Speaker 9: Spent us history for a primary. 00:31:28 Speaker 17: Yeah, it's it's totally insane the amount of money that's been spent by the establishment to target you, and yet every poll is showing you, every single pole is showing you, you know, not just a little bit ahead, not just competitive, but pretty significantly ahead. 00:31:45 Speaker 11: You know what, what does this say? 00:31:46 Speaker 17: I mean, just speak a little bit to this about this fight, because nobody really understands, I think on the outside and across the country that you know, when you actually tabulate all the money that the campaign that Corny spent, all the outside group money, it's probably close to one hundred million dollars that's been spent against you, and yet the people of Texas are still coming out, you know, big behind Paxton. 00:32:09 Speaker 11: So what what has that fight been like? And where do you go? 00:32:13 Speaker 17: From here to help kind of unify this the entire state of Texas and the rest of the country. Yeah, so that that kind of thing never happens again. 00:32:20 Speaker 14: Yeah, it's it's pretty shock. I think he has been close one hundred million. We've spent around three million. There's that's quite a disparaity. 00:32:26 Speaker 9: Even if you're bad at mass that's a big defense, a big number. 00:32:31 Speaker 14: I think part of it is one of the things I looked at when I got into the race was Texas is not like. 00:32:36 Speaker 9: A lot of state. 00:32:37 Speaker 14: It's just so big, and so getting name ID is not easy. Even if you you're you've done really good things. If you're a congressman in Texas, just one to thirty eight, if you're a state center you're. 00:32:47 Speaker 9: Just one of thirty one, if your housemann just one of one fifty. 00:32:50 Speaker 14: So it's really difficult to take that next step against somebody that's been in public office for over forty years. So I looked at that, and when I tested it, my name might be back in February last year was ninety percent. John's was in the seventies. So I knew even if he out spending out did I think you did? I was spending thirty three to one. No, but I felt like somebody with a name I D had to run and it wasn't going to be somebody from Congress. 00:33:16 Speaker 9: It wasn't going to be somebody from the text slitch slitcher because they just don't have the name ID. It's literally that simple. You have to have the name ID. 00:33:22 Speaker 14: And because I'm in office and I could keep working and keep talking about it, it's allowed me to stay fresh in the minds of voters despite the tremendous number of negative ads and the number of false ads. And he's run about himself claiming to be a Maga conservative pro order. 00:33:39 Speaker 9: All that you know or all that was false. 00:33:42 Speaker 4: Yeah, Ken, I remember talking with you, and uh, you see when when this whole kind of race was was gathering steam, you said to me, you said, watch, he's going to vote lockstep with the president. All of a sudden, he's going to be mister Maga general. I mean it was soon as you announced, you knew this was going to be kind of the pattern. He was gonna he was gonna walk. But here's what else is interesting is that you are getting out spent thirty one you have you have ads on TV every day, right, I mean, this is pretty clear. I mean it's multiple, multiple times a day, just a deluge of anti Paxston media right now. 00:34:19 Speaker 14: I've seen I was watching Fox News on Sunday because of the everts. 00:34:24 Speaker 9: Of the war, and I saw three ads a road that were. 00:34:29 Speaker 14: John Cornn one positive, two different negative ads on me. And that was happening all day long. 00:34:35 Speaker 7: So you know, it's like. 00:34:38 Speaker 9: It's it's like, I mean, I think it almost it wears people out. 00:34:42 Speaker 14: It's too much. I mean, he's doing more than getting a message out. It's it's overkilled, and I think people have grown weary of it. It's it's it's obviously it's helped close something again because originally I was at twenty five points ahead and because I didn't had the money to compete. It's it's closed some of the gap, but I don't think it's closed the gap to the degree that they expected it to. 00:35:03 Speaker 9: Because there's there's too many educated voters. 00:35:06 Speaker 14: The people he called radicals two days ago, they called them radicals that are. 00:35:10 Speaker 9: Voting in the Republican primary. 00:35:12 Speaker 14: Those are the people that actually know what's going on and they know what he's done. 00:35:16 Speaker 3: Well, I have a go ahead. 00:35:18 Speaker 17: Tyg I was just gonna say, I mean this, this has the all of the elements that we're walking into to be one of the greatest upsets in establishment history. And again, no one is more deserving of it than you. That's that's actually fought on the side of conservatives. You know, there's no question when people the people that know you and have done any investigative work, you know that you would be a far superior vote in the US Senate than than John Cornyn. But you know, we look at this and the lessons that come out of this, because everybody that I've seen talk about this goes, oh, well, you know, you know, we might have to spend money to help Paxton win and in general, and you know that is such a silly argument because you look at this hundred million dollars. A fraction of that one hundred million dollars is when it takes to win to win in general. 00:36:08 Speaker 4: Yeah, how much money was poured in from outside packs and the NRSC here. 00:36:12 Speaker 17: And and so this looks at this tells you everything. This race is going to probably be the heart and soul Your race is the heart and soul of the future of the conservative movement. I think This is probably next to Donald Trump shocking the world in twenty sixteen. This is probably the second biggest shock maybe in the history of modern American politics. 00:36:35 Speaker 4: Yeah, and here I have two questions off the back of this point that Tyler's making for the Attorney General. 00:36:40 Speaker 3: Here can you win without a runoff? 00:36:43 Speaker 4: And question two, if you have to go to a runoff, does polling show how much of Wesley Hunt's vote you would accumulate? 00:36:50 Speaker 9: So first of all, let me just say this winning being a sitting of a center. If you'll go back, because of the way the camping. 00:36:56 Speaker 14: Finance laws are set up, and I was limited to seven dollars as a person and only half could be used in the primary thirty five hundred, think about how much how many people I had to get to just to do one add in Texas, which is you know, three, four or five million dollars. And yet and you look at incumbency, senatorial incumbency, you go back forty fifty years, how many senators have lost. You've got Richard Luger in twenty twelve in a smaller state who was completely you know, had gone left. And then second you had Mike Lee winning in a convention state where you don't have to spend much money. So you're right, it does not happen very much as far as winning in a not having a runoff. 00:37:34 Speaker 9: I've looked at the numbers. It's not impossible. 00:37:37 Speaker 14: It's hard because what people don't realize, there's eight people in my race everybody, So I have to I tell people seven on one basketball, and I got outscore everybody, and they're all trying to score, and they're all playing defense too, So it's it's not just that it's you know, two other people, there's there's seven other people that I have to outscore all of them. But I've looked at the numbers, and I've seen whole after early voting that suggests that I'm in the forties, that Cohen's in the low thirties, that Wesley's in the teens with about thirteen percent undecided. 00:38:08 Speaker 9: So if the right number of undecided. 00:38:10 Speaker 14: To break my way, and if the right if that trend continues through election day, and the right number of people from Wesley, because he's lost a few points over the class a couple of days, Corn impounded him, And it's not impossible. It's just challenging to get to fifty percent plus one with eight. 00:38:27 Speaker 4: People, right, and do we have any idea? Well, how about we put it this way? Where do people go, what's the action item? What do they need to do right now? 00:38:37 Speaker 9: Well, right now, I would just tell them, if you haven't voted, to go vote. We still have till seven pm Central time. 00:38:42 Speaker 14: If family members have a vote, go vote, and then encourage all your friends to go. 00:38:47 Speaker 9: But it sounds like a small job. 00:38:48 Speaker 14: I mean, I mean it's still made maybe a lot of hassle for you, But reality is, it literally could make the difference between having to go in to a runoff and not having to go in and rough. And I always tell people from the beginning of time, you know, in order to change power, people used to have to fight with their hands and they had to throw rocks and then yeah. 00:39:05 Speaker 9: Arrows and then guns bomb. Today all we have to do is show up to vote and get our friends and get vote. 00:39:10 Speaker 14: It's a lot more, it's a lot easier than it's than ever and so we just need. 00:39:14 Speaker 9: To go do it. 00:39:15 Speaker 3: Well. 00:39:15 Speaker 4: Don't believe the negative attacks. Ken Paxton can win the general and win it, win it handily and easily. That's the basically the attack against you can It's it's pretty funny. I've I've absorbed a lot of them. We've got your back. You're going to be a great next US center from the state of Texas. And so go with God today, win big and hopefully avoid the runoff. But if not, we got your back there too, well, thank you, thank you. Okay, So Tyler, let's go around the horn in Texas, what do we watch it. 00:39:43 Speaker 17: Let's lay out the following of Kim Paxson how this matters. Texas is at a crossroads that some states have entered into, which is are you going more maga, are you going more conservative long term. 00:39:55 Speaker 11: Or are you going to go establishment? 00:39:57 Speaker 17: And the Kim Paxton race is really important because if Paxton is successful, which it looks like he should be, and they make him a US senitor, Texas is going to the the underlying Bush control, you know control arm is basically annihilated. And this is very similar to Arizona with McCain. Arizona had to fight this big war basically and and the McCain influence dissipated. 00:40:23 Speaker 3: This. 00:40:23 Speaker 11: The Paxton race is really important because if Paxton. 00:40:25 Speaker 17: Loses, it gives a revitalization to the Bush wing This sets up all the rest of the races, because there's so many other races that are happening in Texas today that. 00:40:34 Speaker 11: Are super super critical. 00:40:36 Speaker 17: Probably the most the second most important next to the Paxton Race is is Dan Crenshaw's district. So the redistricting happened, districts didn't change too much in this district that was mostly a majority all the same for Dan Crenshaw. But a gentleman named Steve Toath who's in the state legislature right now, who's really well liked, has been a leader on that on that front, decided, Hey, I'm gonna run against Dan Crenshaw. Even though this, you know, it seems like a near impossible task. He's really well liked, really well supported by the donor community that has like had some real questions for Dan Crenshaw and the positions he's taken. And polling is showing Steve Toath within the realm of possibility of being able to defeat Dan Crenshaw. 00:41:22 Speaker 7: So if you're in we're gonna we're gonna call you out, because some people don't know their district. If you're north of Houston, if you're in the Woodlands, if you're in the spring. 00:41:30 Speaker 17: It's centered around the Woodlands. So if you're anywhere near the Woodlands in North Houston, your primary matters, Your primary matters matters wherever you are in Texas. You have an opportunity to replace Dan Crenshaw with Steve Toath, who will be a Freedom Caucus level likely likely UH congressman, which is. 00:41:52 Speaker 11: A big, huge, it's a huge. 00:41:54 Speaker 17: So between Paxton and Toath, those are the two races to keep an eye on in Texas today. 00:41:58 Speaker 11: If those both go positively. 00:42:00 Speaker 17: For both those gentlemen, today, Texas has turned a corner that's heading a lot more conservatively in their Republican park. 00:42:07 Speaker 4: Texas went for Trump I think thirteen or fourteen points, so it was a it was a big win in Texas. A lot of people are predicting like four points, five points, six points and it ends up going you know, fourteen almost fifteen points. 00:42:20 Speaker 17: Well, it's funny you bring up this number. So the number to look for tonight for everyone. And when we're on the broadcast tonight, I'll be dipping out early, but we'll have some Texas people that are on the broadcast night because we're live streaming tonight on the Charlie Kirk channels about you know, evaluating the returns. If Paxton wins by five or more points against Cornyan but still has to go to a runoff. But if it's five or more points, that's that spells doomsday for cornn They should stop spending all the money. They've already spend one hundred million dollars on this man and they haven't been able to get in with the five points. 00:42:53 Speaker 11: That's it. That's it. Now. 00:42:54 Speaker 17: If it's less than five points for Paxton, that's a problem because they're going to keep spending. 00:42:59 Speaker 4: Yeah, and that's that's a huge, huge pivot point. Right, So are the outside groups the NRSC, because if you watch Fox News or anything, By the way, all the senators get on and they say we need we need Corny, right, and that makes sense. It's their colleague and that sort of thing. But it's also NRSC money that's coming in which could be spent on other races. 00:43:18 Speaker 17: And SLFY Senate Leadersship Fund and so yeah, there's a couple of other important races that are happening. John Bonk, who's running also a good conservative two twenty one, like likely he's going to be a really good representative in Texas obviously of Congressman Brandon he's a branding Gill type. So Brandon Gill has endorsed them. So if you like Congressman Brandon Gill again, he's probably one of the most in your face. You have Freedom Caucus esque Congressman John Bank is one of those guys. Another another good guy that's running as Garborough Jason is in a really tough primary again because Texas has this runoff role. This is Congressional District thirty two. Another similar young guy, great family, who's going to be an incredible representation of that. A couple of the state wides that are really important, a couple of the state wise that are really important. You have Don Huffines that's running for Comptroller. Don Huffines, if you remember, ran against Abbot a few years ago. He's been a great supporter of turning points for a long long time. He got pummeled by Abbot and had actually had resources and money pummeled Abbot, but stuck in there. He was one of the best liberty minded members of the legislature for many many years. He was kind of the face of the opposition to the establishment for. 00:44:51 Speaker 3: He was a big on abolishing property text. 00:44:53 Speaker 17: If I remember, Don has been the face of anti establishment activity in Texas or the last fifteen to twenty years minimum. His whole family has They've put all of their resources against the establishment at great cost to them, and he's still in this. He's in this thing. He could win comptroller over with over fifty percent. 00:45:15 Speaker 6: I have news for you, Tyler. Today is a great day for. 00:45:17 Speaker 3: You to learn. 00:45:18 Speaker 7: It's usually just pronounced controller, even though they throw that p in there for no reason. 00:45:21 Speaker 17: Oh right, it's controller. 00:45:23 Speaker 11: Okay, I don't know why. 00:45:23 Speaker 3: What about what about Don? What about the chip Roy race? 00:45:26 Speaker 11: I'll take it. I'll take that. 00:45:27 Speaker 3: That that what about chip Roy? 00:45:29 Speaker 11: You have chip Roy? 00:45:30 Speaker 17: Chip Roy is in uh So you have this race right now and all everybody's talk about the Attorney General's race. 00:45:37 Speaker 11: There are three major players that you see in this. 00:45:41 Speaker 17: In this race, you have chip Roy, and then you have the gentleman that was endorsed by Ken Paxton. And then you have his name's Aaron Reets. And then you have another guy named Mays Middleton. May's has been described he's he's going out and saying a lot of pro Trump things, but he's been described as friendly with the Trump associate. I'm sorry, not Trump with a bush, the bad bush side of the state of Texas. And you know, Chip has been on the Freedom Caucus, supported by the Freedom Fund, all of that, and then you have again Aaron who's been endorsed by Ken. All the polling is showing that this race is coming down to between Mays and Chip Roy. 00:46:29 Speaker 3: Yeah, it's gonna be a nail bier. 00:46:31 Speaker 17: So so you know, now the likelihood is still going to go a runoff, but the fact is is that it's likely that Chip is your greatest competition to Maze. We like Chip a lot more because of his background with the Freedom Caucus. He's been the champion for the Save Act and that's really important. 00:46:50 Speaker 3: Yep. And good on the border as well. 00:46:52 Speaker 11: YEP. 00:46:54 Speaker 4: I think nutrition has gotten way too complicated. It seems like every week there's a new powder, a new lab created formula, some new breakthrough. But the truth, and we've been told this since we were kids, is to eat your fruit and vegetables. Nobody really explained why when you eat whole foods you're getting phyto nutrients, those natural compounds your body uses to adjust, repair and respond every single day. That's not hype. That's just how we were designed. That's why I take Balance of Nature. They use a tailored vacuum cold process that stabilizes the phyto nutrition in fruits and vegetables. I'll say that again, a tailored vacuum cold process that stabilizes the phyto nutrition in fruits and vegetables, so you're getting real whole food nutrition, not synthetic substitutes. Their whole health system includes fruits and veggies, plus fiber and spice, forty seven ingredients, and one super routine. I take it myself. If you want to fight the good fight phyt go to Balance of Nature dot com to subscribe and save today join hundreds of thousands of customers in one simple routine that's changing the world. Go to Balance of Nature dot com to subscribe. Anna Paulina Luna joins US now Congresswoman. Welcome back to the show. You had a very interesting, let's just say, uh time with the Clintons. You were up in New York, uh, and you got to be in on that that meeting. We now have video clips from that. Why don't you just take us inside the room and give us a sense of what it was like. I mean that's quite quite the pair you were you were. 00:48:35 Speaker 18: Discussing, Yeah, it's not. 00:48:37 Speaker 19: It's not every day that you get to diplo depose a former secretary and president. But you know, ultimately, our sole objective for this is is getting justice for the victims. And I think a lot of people, to include ourselves, have been rightfully frustrated because, you know, at a certain point we were promised names, we never see those names. 00:48:54 Speaker 18: And then also there's. 00:48:55 Speaker 19: This aspect of what we found out, what I really helped uncover is that a lot of the co conspirators that were given these plea deals were actually some of the women. So these women engaged in what I would say is human rights abuses, They were responsible for trafficking. And then also to you have a lot of the doctors and physicians that were essentially led off that kind of knew about what was happening. 00:49:17 Speaker 18: So there's clearly more to be investigated in this. 00:49:19 Speaker 19: But then also the aspect of okay, well how much did you know Epstein's circle of influence know about what was happening. We saw that the Clinton's, specifically with the secretary, you know, had a lot of connections there via the Clinton Foundation, although according to her deposition and according to a lot of the statements made by President Clinton, she was somewhat insulated in I guess her direct contact. But the president President Bill Clinton, specifically did seem to acknowledge and admit that it was his relationship with Jeffrey to include Gleen that actually kind of is the reason why he should be brought into testifying. So it was very evident that Secretary Clinton did not want to be there. She, as you saw in some of that footage, lost her temper a few times and was not so not so I don't want to say nice, but just not as cooperative, and they were very difficult to get in. And then you saw kind of when President Clinton came in the next day, it was definitely kind of a shift. He was a lot more I guess, you know, a lot more forward in his answering, and it did not appear that he was trying to hide the ball. But as you also saw, there was a lot of questioning that, you know, even with the secretary when we were posing questions, a lot of their communication between husband and wife is considered protected communication privilege, So there's a lot that we could not have answered as well. 00:50:46 Speaker 4: Well, and you know, it was just I had I had to say it was just a bit interesting. 00:50:51 Speaker 3: I thought it was really interesting. 00:50:52 Speaker 4: I think a lot of people had this experience watching these clips because you see President Clinton kind of still jovial. You could still see all the elements that made him a really talented politician, but he's getting asked about the most salacious details about. 00:51:08 Speaker 7: You know, it's very it felt very nineties. And as the joke was made, of course, we're bombing a country in the Middle East right now. 00:51:14 Speaker 6: Of course, still Clinton is testifying. 00:51:16 Speaker 4: Yeah, meanwhile Hillary's like slamming tables like it's Bengazi all over again. 00:51:20 Speaker 3: I mean, it was very interesting. 00:51:22 Speaker 4: Okay, I have to play this one because I just found it funny and I want to get your reaction from being in the room. I just had to make you at least somewhat uncomfortable apl three eighty four. 00:51:34 Speaker 13: I never saw anybody do anything wrong. I thought they were flying to us. 00:51:40 Speaker 8: Do flight attendants typically wear taktops and jeans. 00:51:48 Speaker 13: They don't all wear uniforms on private flights. 00:51:51 Speaker 4: Okay, so there was a lot of this, like who are you getting why were you getting. 00:51:56 Speaker 3: Massages from young women? Did you find that strange? 00:51:59 Speaker 4: And he's kind, you know, And then at one point somebody shows him a picture of him with some young wo woman and the lawyer tries to take it out of his hands, and he grabs it back, and he's got this smirk on his face, and I'm going, dude, you're getting deposed by Congress right now. 00:52:15 Speaker 3: You know, I don't know, I just I have. 00:52:18 Speaker 4: To wonder what was that like to see a former sitting US president being asked these types of questions? 00:52:24 Speaker 3: Did it make you uncomfortable? I mean, look, I. 00:52:28 Speaker 19: Straight up asked him about his trip to Africa, where we know that there was you know, one of the victims on that flight. And I should have asked him about Virginia Griffrey's commentary about him going to the island, and you know, when you're sitting there and obviously no one is above the law, but also to you know, part of what I have. 00:52:49 Speaker 18: And it's become very evident and apparent. 00:52:50 Speaker 19: And I even confronted both Secretary Clinton and President Clinton with the facts that Jeffrey Epstein was an intel asset. I asked specifically with Secretary Clinton, which she said, you know, it's quite possible he was running a honeypop ertion, which I think is very. 00:53:08 Speaker 18: Very evident at this point. But then you know, kind. 00:53:11 Speaker 19: Of referencing, well, which countries would have a specific interest in, you know, figuring out what President Clinton was doing, right, And I think just kind of the whole aspect of you know, he once I presented him with the alias and the and the other identity that Epstein had, you know, he kind of saw that and you could tell that he was shocked. But then also too it goes into kind of like an even more more weirder space, I guess because at one point President Clinton was asked about did he think that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself? And he's like, well, I think he finally got caught. I really don't know. He was uncomfortable, the attorney didn't really want him to answer. And then on the flip side, Secretary Clinton, when she was confronted with a similar question, she had said something along the lines of Jeffrey Epstein died in mysterious circumstances or mysteriously had died. So I think the fact is is that you know, they see the writing on the wall. 00:54:01 Speaker 18: He was obviously a very bad guy. 00:54:03 Speaker 19: They also know that there's this aspect of intel operation happening, they would be prime targets. You know, Bill Clinton, you can't tell me that, you know, he probably. 00:54:14 Speaker 18: Didn't fully. 00:54:17 Speaker 19: Know what was going on in the sense that you know, those were kind of some younger girls, et cetera. But also too, I mean, at a certain point, did he do we have any evidence right now that he did anything illegal? And the answer is no, according to the deposition, and according to you know, at least the evidence that we have that's not there. But what was interesting is that the entire time that we were in that room, the Democrats were trying to, you know, basically come up with reasonings to bring in and oppose President Trump. And at a certain point President Clinton actually did exonerate President Trump, which they did not like and they freaked out about. And then shortly thereafter I actually also had asked President Trump about a woman who had made a false claim that he had sex tapes out there with some of the victims. And I asked him, in so many words, would you want oversight to call in a victim like that, or an alleged victim that had been proven to be lying? And he said no, you shouldn't be doing that. And the reason I asked that specifically is because there has also been this attempt with the files to call in President Trump using false claims from people that were not credible witnesses or credible victims. And so I think, you know, it was good that he came in. Do I think that we're ever going to be able to get names directly from the Clintons or were we able to get names directly from the Clintons regarding people that were potentially involved in the trafficking. 00:55:40 Speaker 13: No. 00:55:40 Speaker 19: However, when I showed the secretary emails that were some of the most egregious emails that you guys probably all saw on red on the Internet, and she read them and then I said, do you think that this person should be called in? She said, yes, well that individual who was writing those emails that was a woman. And so I am going to be pushing and I've already talked to Chairman Comer, and I think there is support for bringing in the co conspirators that were given lesser plea deals because they should have to answer for that, in addition to some of the other individuals that knew and potentially we're even treating these victims because they did not report the trafficking. 00:56:13 Speaker 4: Yeah, that falls in line with a lot of Blake's thinking. Actually, you know, the women were accomplices in this, and that's a big part of how Jeffrey Epstein got these young women to be surrounding him and these other rich guys is they used Virginia Giffrey as an example of that. She lured in underage women, told them to wear makeup and act and lie about their age. 00:56:37 Speaker 3: Totally. 00:56:38 Speaker 19: But I think but I think that there's also a big difference though, between someone that's you know, coaxed into doing something as a minor versus someone that continues to do it for years as an adult and is getting paid to do it and they are no longer co or you know, victims, they would then become co conspirators and traffickers. 00:56:55 Speaker 18: And so I think that that's a big difference. 00:56:57 Speaker 19: And you know, a lot of people for a long time, I think, don't really realize that we were promised names. They said we when we interviewed some of the victim they said, we will give you names, and we have not yet received those names. And so that's why I guess it's kind of frustrating, and I understand that people have been failed by the justice system previously, but we are still trying to at least ensure that people, if they were trafficking, let's bring them in and we want to at least expose this and then it's up to the Department of Justice on whether or not they're going to prosecute. But the fact is that there's this has become so politicized with the attempts to try to basically make it look like President Trump was trafficking people, which we know he's been exonerated by the victims by multiple ags by literally President Bill Clinton, and so it seems like some of it's being lost in translation. But yeah, it was definitely, definitely quite the experience. I did not expect Hillary Clinton to lose her cool like that, and I was shocked. There was a couple of times that she was kind of, you know, getting irritated being there. 00:57:54 Speaker 18: Total one eighty out from President Bill Clinton. 00:57:57 Speaker 4: Well, apl we've got Alliance of Sovereign Nations coming up. Can you just quick elevator pitch on what it is Turning Points working with you on it? 00:58:05 Speaker 3: Tell us about it. 00:58:06 Speaker 19: Yes, Turning Point Action has worked with us to stand up first ever of its kind event focusing on I don't want to say nation building, but really ensuring that countries specifically European nations that have been so long told that you know, we need censorship, and you need open borders, and you need to focus on green energy, really removing the backbone of these countries. This is going to completely flip that on its head. It's a more populous movement focusing on fundamental things like free speech, energy, independence, ie nuclear energy, and strong immigration policy. And so we have seventy five countries from around the world that are in attendance and we're very happy for it. 00:58:44 Speaker 4: It's become all the rage of our all of our head craies right now everywhere. Yeah, there's so many press want to be inside this room, and we're we're being very much sticklers on who we let in because we want them to the rail what is sure to be a really important event. So congrats on putting that together. It's becoming a really big deal and we'll have more to report on that soon. Tyler's been helping you with that and a few others. So an A Polina Luna, thank you for giving us the update on the Clinton deposition. Got much much more to uncover there. I'm sure you're going to keep on it. Thanks for joining us today. 00:59:23 Speaker 18: Thanks guys. 00:59:26 Speaker 4: Before he ever stepped behind a microphone, Charlie understood something important. Leadership begins with learning. He didn't chase a diploma or a title. He chased truth. Through Hillsdale College's free online courses. He studied the great works of the Classics, the principles of the American Founding, and the life changing truths of the Bible. Those ideas didn't just inform him, they shaped his character, strengthened his convictions, and prepared him for the challenges ahead of. One of the courses he took was The Genesis Story, taught by Hillsdale Professor doctor Justin Jackson. This free online course explores the relationship between God and man, what happens when that relationship is broken, and the path toward reconciliation. It's a real college course, rigorous, thoughtful, and accessible to anyone willing to learn. You can take the very same course completely free. Grow stronger in your faith, gain clarity about humanity and your place in the world. Prepare yourself for a life with courage and conviction. Visit Charlie for Hillsdale dot com to enroll today. That's Charlie for Hillsdale dot com. Learn deeply, Lead, boldly, carry it forward. All right, So a lot of you were asking for more clips, and I wanted to, but a congressman on a Polina Luna was going through her experience in the room. So let's you hadn't even seen this clip. This is Bill Clinton, essentially from his perspective, at least, exonerating President Trump three eighty five. 01:00:50 Speaker 13: The President never this is twenty something years ago, never said anything to me to make me think he was involved in anything in profitable regard to have seen either. He just didn't. 01:01:05 Speaker 9: That's the truth. 01:01:06 Speaker 13: You know. 01:01:09 Speaker 9: As I said earlier, the. 01:01:13 Speaker 13: Only conversation I have with President Trump about this was in the early two thousands, and I have no information that he did anything wrong. 01:01:27 Speaker 4: No information that President Trump did anything wrong. I mean, by the way, the timing of that, I think is telling. Early two thousands, this is when they were still friends. President Trump or President Clinton was much younger than much sooner just leaving office, and President Trump was not president yet he was considered a Democrat donor was you know, I think get Chelsea Clinton's wedding right anyway, So they had interactions, So I think that's very telling. This was the clip that I took note of, and I thought it was pretty comical. Maybe, and maybe I'm rock for thinking that. I don't know, but it was a lot of people online certainly noticed it. Four fifty seven. 01:02:09 Speaker 13: Let me see it. 01:02:17 Speaker 16: M okay, mister president, we. 01:02:26 Speaker 4: Have so I thought there'd be more audio cues there people laughing, that's. 01:02:31 Speaker 7: Laughing, but we don't really know what precisely he's laughing. 01:02:35 Speaker 4: Yeah, it was flipping through old Epstein photos of him smiling and nodding with I mean, because. 01:02:40 Speaker 3: I find it unlikely. 01:02:42 Speaker 7: I find it unlikely that what was going on there as he was suddenly tipping his hand like oh yeah, I remember of using that person. 01:02:49 Speaker 4: No, I think he's he's sort of laughing at the spectacle of the entire ordeal. But a lot of people found it humorous online because those were apparently pictures. 01:02:58 Speaker 17: I mean, many people think that he's laughing because. 01:03:02 Speaker 11: You know, what is out there, what is what. 01:03:06 Speaker 17: He's looking at is far less egregious than what, yeah, is not out there. 01:03:11 Speaker 7: Yeah, it could be like a very real possibility to me is what we've seen over and over is there's a lot of salacious allegations that have come from They'll release a photo next to someone who's has their face blurred out, and they're implying that this was someone they abused, that someone who is underage, and they're neither of those things, of course. Yeah, and so he might look at this photo and be like, oh, that's a twenty eight year old person that I interacted with, or sure something like that. 01:03:37 Speaker 17: Sure, yeah, I mean it interacted's putting it very It might. 01:03:42 Speaker 7: It might literally just be that these are just the all of these are just photos that people took. 01:03:48 Speaker 13: Like. 01:03:48 Speaker 7: They're not secret photos. They're not blackmail photos as far as we know. They just seem to be any photo you might take, like with your phone today if you're at a party. 01:03:59 Speaker 17: I mean certain certainly Blake a sitting president that leaves office and immediately is flying down with imagery that is being produced and put in front of him. That's that's that is not exactly, especially when we rewind back to the nineties like I get today, Likemerica's. 01:04:20 Speaker 7: Nineties thing to me, I was only ten, you know, Okay, I don't think. 01:04:24 Speaker 17: No one, not even no one was okay with any of this, Like nobody has ever like the fact that, like society has has been degraded into something where it's like, oh, this isn't that big of a deal, and I get it, totally jaded. Everyone's jaded now whatever. At the time, at the time period, if those images would have come out when it would have been, it would have been it would have been the most important thing on the news for three years. 01:04:52 Speaker 4: Well, kind of like when Clinton had his intern run in with Monica Lewinsky. So this is funny. I don't have the clip and I just remembered it, so I didn't call for it. But they were asking about why do you hang out with all these young women. He's like, well, that's wrong, I don't hang out with I don't typically hang out with younger women and all this stuff. 01:05:10 Speaker 3: And they go, would you consider an intern young? And he goes, you. 01:05:13 Speaker 4: Can see his whole face is like, well, you got me, they were gonna live that. He goes, yes, interns are young. Let me just play one from Hillary because she's just got a vibe here. 01:05:23 Speaker 3: Three eighty six, when you. 01:05:25 Speaker 20: Saw photos of your husband and a hot tub, laying on a beach and getting massaged by other women. And you knew that Jeffrey Epstein was involved in some of these trips and these things. 01:05:32 Speaker 18: Did it concern you at all? 01:05:34 Speaker 21: I'm here not to offer my opinions. I'm here to answer specific questions to the best of my ability. 01:05:39 Speaker 20: When you saw your husband and these photos of the young women being massaged, what went through your mind? 01:05:43 Speaker 21: I am not going to speculate. 01:05:45 Speaker 17: She's I don't think that's speculation, And I guess it's a direct question of how did you feel about that? 01:05:50 Speaker 4: I mean, I I legally she's smart, gout she did the right thing right because they're trying to get salacious details and et cetera, et cetera. 01:06:00 Speaker 3: But anyways, yeah, she ended up. 01:06:01 Speaker 4: There was a whole photo leak situation with I believe Lauren Bobert, Congressman Lauren Bobert out of Colorado leaked to a picture. 01:06:09 Speaker 3: They found out that she leaked it. 01:06:11 Speaker 4: During the hearing, she slammed her fists on the table and it was quite the moment. I believe we just about have it loaded up here, but it literally all of us turned and looked at each other and We're like that was Benghazi. That was a total Benghazi moment. Hillary Clinton has not changed. You can take the woman out of Washington, but you can't take the Washington out of the woman New York wherever. 01:06:36 Speaker 3: Something like that. 01:06:37 Speaker 17: Like that, it's a scary cross between Washington and Arkansas. 01:06:41 Speaker 11: That's what it is. 01:06:42 Speaker 3: It's steeped in power for you, all right? Four fifty eight. 01:06:46 Speaker 22: Keithan me, Can I interrupt? 01:06:48 Speaker 18: I have another Odors that are being released. 01:06:52 Speaker 22: Of the secretary as she is testifying from inside this room. Can you please advise me as to whether or not that's permissional and consistent with the rules, particularly given that we have asked for public hearing. If there are photos that are being released of the secretary she is testifying, can you please explain how. 01:07:08 Speaker 21: We've done with this. If you guys are doing that, I am done. You can hold me a contempt from now until the cows come home. This is just typical behavior. Oh for heaven, I say to understand how that's permissible. 01:07:22 Speaker 22: It doesn't matter. 01:07:23 Speaker 21: We all are abiding by the same rules. 01:07:27 Speaker 22: Yeah, well, I would like to take a break at this movie. 01:07:30 Speaker 18: I'd like to. 01:07:30 Speaker 3: I've done for and on that note, we are done. We'll see you tomorrow, Hillary. 01:07:37 Speaker 7: I don't want to feel bad for Hillary. 01:07:45 Speaker 1: For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to Charliekirk dot com