Tyler Robinson: The State Responds + Vindman Crashes Out

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. 00:00:11 Speaker 2: My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. 00:00:14 Speaker 1: 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 1: 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. 00:00:46 Speaker 2: 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 3: All right, welcome everybody. 00:01:19 Speaker 4: It is August nineteenth, twenty twenty six. Lots to get through today, a very very packed and busy show. We obviously had some important primary races yesterday. We're going to be covering that the half hour mark with Rich Barris at the beginning. However, here and by the way, we've got Mark Halprin coming on, and we're going to revisit the our day case out of the UK yes with the academic who exposed it, who blew the lid. So a massive, massive show today. But first here we have to get to the news, and that is breaking that the State of Utah has responded to the defense and in the Tyler Robinson hearing. 00:02:03 Speaker 3: And we have Jay Town joining us. 00:02:05 Speaker 4: He's a career federal prosecutor, knows this stuff in it inside or out. You've known him if you watch this show. He's helped us break down atf reports and the like because he's seen hundreds and hundreds of them himself. Jay, Welcome back to the Charlie Kirk Show. Honored to have you. You've read the state's reply memo again. This it sort of a bit of a volley back and forth. So the state it's called a bind over. The state issued its first position, a memo brief. Then the defense responds basically says, if all of these things are true, it's still not shouldn't be a death penalty case. Basically the aggravated you know add ons should not be relevant. They made their argument. Now the state has responded. When you look at this nineteen page memo, what are you looking at? 00:02:57 Speaker 3: What do you see? Do you think they did a competent job here? 00:03:00 Speaker 5: I thought they did a great job. 00:03:02 Speaker 6: In fact, the prosecution hip checked the defense pretty hard against the boards of Utah jurisprudence. It was actually, you know, pretty systematic in their response. The evidence is overwhelming against Tyler Robinson. So to me, some of this didn't probably have to happen because anybody with a functioning Olympic system would know that there's probable cause to believe that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk, and that there were other people in the you know, and he did so first political expression, which is one of the aggravators, and also that it was endangering the public. The people around Charlie Kirk are behind Charlie Kirker. 00:03:46 Speaker 5: In that line of fire. 00:03:48 Speaker 6: But the prosecution took the extra step, which I think the kirk family appreciates and everybody watching this appreciates, to explain why and explain why. 00:03:57 Speaker 5: The arguments made by the defense were false. 00:04:01 Speaker 6: Their reading of the law was just wrong, right on down to them calling reasonable inferences, which is always a postulate in the law, that is for a fackfinder, and calling that such thing as a speculation. 00:04:15 Speaker 4: Yeah yeah, okay, so Jack pause right there. So when I'm reading the brief again, I'm not a lawyer. Blake sometimes plays one on TV. But there is this a lot of ink spilled in this memo that is arguing about the difference between reasonable inferences and speculation from a legal perspective. Why is that important? And what is the distinction? 00:04:38 Speaker 2: Right? 00:04:38 Speaker 6: So, speculation is if you're speculating, you can't get to even probable cause, or certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. But let me give you a great example, and this is what I would tell jury's in my murder cases and my death penalty cases. If you went to bed and then you woke up and across your driveway there were deer tracks across the snow you would know three things. 00:05:00 Speaker 5: Now you weren't there, you didn't see any of the following, but you. 00:05:03 Speaker 6: Would you would be able to reasonably infer that the following three things happened. 00:05:07 Speaker 5: One that it snowed last night, Two. 00:05:10 Speaker 6: That a deer crossed your driveway last night, and three that the deer crossed the driveway after it snowed. 00:05:17 Speaker 5: And and those are all reasonable inferences. That none of us saw. None of the twelve jurors were there. 00:05:22 Speaker 6: That day, none of the that's and this is just sort of common misdirection by defense counsel to say, you're just speculating. Sure, you know, somebody could have hung from a platform like Tom Cruise and mission impossible, and with a snow machine and planted you know, little deer tracks in the driveway. 00:05:41 Speaker 5: That's possible, but it's. 00:05:43 Speaker 6: Not reasonable to infer that, right, That can't be your first thought. Uh and so, and that's really what the state is saying. It is the function of every fact finder. In this case, it's the judge. Later on, it will be a jury to determine whether or not these reasonable inferences that people were in the line of fire, or that if he had missed that that you know, he could he could have killed somebody else and put other people in the public in great danger. 00:06:10 Speaker 5: And let's just get something clear. And here's why that's such an idiotic argument by the defense. We wouldn't be here. 00:06:16 Speaker 6: If he didn't miss, right, so or if he missed rather, I mean, the fact is, yeah, he hit his target because he had political motivations to kill Charlie Kirk, but he's still endangered others by taking that shot. 00:06:32 Speaker 5: There's always a risk that Tyler Robinson doesn't shoot so well that it actually lodges into the spine of Charlie Kirk such that only small particles of. 00:06:44 Speaker 6: That thirty sixth round, that thirty caliber class bullet exited Charlie Kirk. 00:06:51 Speaker 5: And so you know, the defense is doing all they can to make. 00:06:57 Speaker 4: Argu Yeah, there wasn't any of those nothing did exit it. Apparently the bullet broke apart ended up in his chest cavity. But yeah, he didn't know that that was going to be the outcome of that. Also, they made the point in the brief that the questioner's head was about at the same head level as Charlie's was about at the same head level, if not slightly above, so he endangered the questioner if nobody else, But obviously they then they make the point that there are other people to the left and to the right behind in the proximity. They made the point that he visited the location twice earlier that morning he saw that there was people around the perimeter of that tent. 00:07:36 Speaker 7: Blake you wanted to channel, Well, I just you know, they have the back and forth about aggravating factors? 00:07:41 Speaker 3: Is this falid? 00:07:42 Speaker 8: What does the Supreme Court precedent say? 00:07:44 Speaker 7: But I think the most important thing that people care about most is we have sixty or so pages between the defense filing and the prosecution filing, and maybe a grand total of one one and a half pages dedicated to the core question of is Tyler R. Robinson incredibly accused of murder. 00:08:02 Speaker 3: It's a great point because the. 00:08:03 Speaker 7: Defense basically didn't contest anything other than to throw out one page to say, uh, we said some of the stuff was here, say just the text message, lance twig stuff. They don't address DNA, they don't address the rifle, they don't address the camera footage, whether that's Robinson. 00:08:17 Speaker 8: And that's what they say in this prosecution file. 00:08:19 Speaker 4: And yeah, here's the opening from this prosecution memo. This I guess it was filed last night. Defendant does not challenge the substance of the evidence demonstrating that he was the person who crawled to the sniper's perch on the LOWC building rooftop, fired the fatal shot that killed mister Charlie Kirk, had the rifle in a wooded or hit the rifle in a wooded area, got rid of some of the clothing he was wearing, and told his roommate to delete their texts about the shooting. Prosecutors wrote, So that's that part, that's the very beginning, I mean, straight to the point. Do you like that approach? Did you like the way that they kind of just led with that and then deliberated the aggravating factors? 00:09:01 Speaker 6: I do, because look, at the end of the day right now, I think that the prosecution and the defense would agree. The defense was trying to chase save Tyler Robinson's life. They don't believe that he's going to be found not guilty of anything, and the prosecution wants to put him to death. And what the prosecution did just in that one sentence was tamp down any ridiculous arguments that anybody is making, whether it's in the Twitter sphere or in the state of Utah, that it could have been somebody else. 00:09:29 Speaker 4: Yeah, Jay, there's a There was this big debate that happened on Friday between Andrew Wilson and Candice Owens, and one of the things that came up was this concept of, well, the parents apparently had a role in turning them in, and we know this from the charging documents. They recognized their son based on surveillance images stills that were taken from the surveillance footage. There was a phone call, they worked with a local sheriff or former sheriff deputy or whatever his particular title was, and he ended up turning himself in right partly because of surveila's images. Now, there is a suggestion that maybe the parents don't believe that he's guilty or something like that. I think that's hogwashed. There's no evidence to suggest that at this point. But had that been the case, would that be something that the defense would have reasonably brought up during a preliminary hearing. 00:10:18 Speaker 6: Yes, they would have brought all of these ridiculous conspiracy theories would have been brought out at the prelim because the whole goal is to not have the most significant charges like murder bound over for trial, and so every theory that was available to the defense could have been brought up, and they never brought up the fact that it was somebody else. They never they contested the DNA findings and things like that. But that's just going to happen. What we haven't seen yet really in evidence. 00:10:52 Speaker 5: We know about it and we can infer some of it. 00:10:55 Speaker 6: But the mom and dad are going to testify, that sheriff's deputy are going to de testify. Twigs is going to testify under oath about the admissions that Tyler Robinson made to them. That's why from if you're the defense lawyer, you know that evidence is coming, which is why you're not saying, you know, well it was somebody else, right, I mean, it's absolutely a ridiculous statement to make given the evidence that I've seen. I haven't seen a stronger murder case in the twenty eight years that I've served in the prosecution business, and I prosecuted well over ten thousand defendants and investigated and prosecuted hundreds of homicide cases, to include death penalty cases. I've never seen evidence this strong. The only defense that I see they have left is to just try to save his life by saying he's a young man and get the jury to nullify some of these aggravators. But the fact is Charlie Kirk was murdered because of his political viewpoints by Tyler Robinson. The evidence is overwhelming, and even Tyler Robinson's parents know this. 00:11:58 Speaker 4: Yeah, and we talked with just ex briefly with Andrea Burkhart, who's an online she's a streamer covers these cases. I believe she was a former actually courtroom attorney. Anyways, she wrote back basically and said, you know, the defense brief is pretty much exactly what I predicted they'd argue. And this was back when the defense brief just dropped. I think the one witness tampering charge gets dropped, but the aggravator sticks. Is that how you see this probably playing out? Or do you think the witness tampering is strong as well? 00:12:30 Speaker 9: I don't know why anybody would argue that the witness tampering wasn't strong, because he said, delete all these text messages for I'm telling you what I did. 00:12:41 Speaker 5: Right, So I've admitted to a crime. 00:12:44 Speaker 6: There's evidence of a crime now on your phone, Lance, but delete it. 00:12:48 Speaker 5: Delete that evidence, right, and don't talk to anybody. Don't tell anybody about this. Yeah, I think it all gets found over well. 00:12:55 Speaker 4: So I do want to bring up one other thing that I have been personally really interested in. I just saw this on x from an account called Ali J Kiss all y J Kiss. People can check it out for themselves, but basically one of the ongoing questions that a lot of people have had was there was there seemed to be prior knowledge in the social media sphere. People were suggesting that Charlie was going to be murdered that day before it happened. Now, the truth is is that a lot of people say a lot of crazy things on the Internet. Okay, but this has been an ongoing question that I have and still have. I want to know more about the discord chats. There was some new evidence. Apparently this person found a warrant that had been served and it says this was obtained personally through a record search of Utah Courts Exchange Public case search. So they went through and they found this one. You can throw up the Yeah, there's the warrant and it was served against one of these people. And this account was somebody named omar a are A Galves and says, Charlie Kirk is coming to my college tomorrow. I really hope someone evaporates him literally, next quote, let's just say something big will happen tomorrow. And it's got this face. So these are the kind of things that we want to be, we want answers to right. Was their prior knowledge? Was there a greater network that radicalized him? Did people in the discord chats know, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And this is the first evidence that I've seen, Maybe others exist that this. Investigators looked into this guy, issued a search warrant of the person that posted this, and actually went after him. Is this Would you expect that there's a number of these search warrants out there for people that expressed seemingly prior knowledge. 00:14:43 Speaker 6: Well, I don't know if there'd be search warrants as often as there would be law enforcement that actually just go knock on the door. This is making a terroristic threat or an online threat in depending on the state or the jurisdiction that necessitates law enforcement knocking on your I would Bet and Andrew, you would know this better than maybe anybody except for Erica, that every time Charlie appeared somewhere there was a similar sort of ugly statement, I hope something bad happens to Charlie Kirk. So I don't think it's evidence of anything that second tweet. 00:15:18 Speaker 5: You know, let's just say something BIG's going to. 00:15:20 Speaker 6: Happen, you know, I mean, who knows, But I don't think that that's some guy with insider knowledge knowledge. 00:15:28 Speaker 5: You know, But I think they would they would get to the bottom of it. 00:15:30 Speaker 4: Pretty Yet, this caused investigators to execute a search horn on this guy's and the contents of his phone. They investigators did not believe this some individual as the shooter, but he posted these things that seemed to indicate prior knowledge. So that is the first piece of evidence I've seen. Because one of the narratives out there is that the Feds looked only at Tyler Obbison, they didn't investigate anybody else, and they ignored all the other surrounding evidence. This suggests that that's not true. At least there's one. I would presume there's more. 00:16:00 Speaker 6: Ten seconds, yeah, and I would just simply say it was Tyler Robinson. It's clear to everybody to include the judge and the twelve people that will judge him guilty in a couple of weeks or a couple months rather. 00:16:10 Speaker 3: Thank you Jay, appreciate your insights there. 00:16:13 Speaker 2: Thanks Andrew. 00:16:16 Speaker 3: If you think wireless. 00:16:17 Speaker 4: Companies are all the same, you might need to take a look at our friends over at Patriot Mobile. Patriot Mobile isn't just different because of its mission, it's actually built to outperform the other carriers. They offer premium priority nationwide service on any of the three major US networks, helping you get the best possible coverage wherever life takes you. With Patriot Mobile, you can even have two separate networks on a single device, eliminating the need to carry multiple phones and giving you peace of mind you just can't get with other carriers. Need Internet on the go, Patriot Mobile Wi Fi hotspots connect to multiple networks to keep you connected while traveling or working remotely. They also offer international roaming and enterprise solution for businesses that need dependable connective and US based customer support. Keep your number, keep your phone, or upgrade switch from your home or office. It just takes a few minutes and when you call Patriot Mobile, You'll talk to real people right here in the United States. Superior coverage, superior product, superior customer support. That's Patriot Mobile. Go to Patriot Mobile dot com slash Charlie or call nine seven two Patriot use promo code Charlie for a free month of service. That's Patriotmobile dot com slash Charlie, or called. 00:17:26 Speaker 3: Nine seven to two Patriot Today. Joining us now is. 00:17:30 Speaker 4: Rich Barris, the Great Rich Barris, the people's pundit, big data poll. 00:17:35 Speaker 3: Rich. 00:17:35 Speaker 4: We had a big night last night. Lots to take in. I'll start with Alaska. I know everybody wants to talk about Florida, and we will get there in just a second. But let's talk about Alaska, because you just put up this tweet right here, throw up one to seventy six. You're a little worried about Alaska. Now, they were trying to cheat. They had like multiple Dan Sullivan's on the ballot on the Republican side. But you're more looking overall turnout and you're a little bit concerned because Democrats look to be outpacing Republicans. 00:18:06 Speaker 10: Yeah, let me just I mean, it's a simple problem to spell out. And thanks for having me on as always, it's a. 00:18:11 Speaker 11: Simple problem to spell out, guys, we need higher Republican turnout because we can't have in red states Democrats garner more votes like we see in Alaska because come the general election, we're gonna get bludgeoned by independence. 00:18:25 Speaker 10: And it's just the reality. It's not black pilling. 00:18:28 Speaker 11: You can't lose independence and then not have sufficient turnout. We're gonna have to swamp the way that Barack Obama and Democrats did in twenty twelve. That is what we're gonna have to do. So Obama and Democrats decided in twenty twelve. 00:18:42 Speaker 10: I don't think we can win this independent vote back. 00:18:45 Speaker 11: I think we're in a deficit that's a little bit too hard to overcome at this point. 00:18:48 Speaker 10: So what we need to do is make. 00:18:50 Speaker 11: Sure we juice our own base enough that it really doesn't matter. 00:18:54 Speaker 10: And that is in fact, what they did. 00:18:56 Speaker 11: The good news is Republicans have the numbers, they're just not getting them out. 00:19:00 Speaker 10: So what I really want everyone to go do right now, Let's go to. 00:19:04 Speaker 12: Tvaction dot com slash chase the vote. I'm not kidding, I am not kidding, and I need, I need you to go to chase the vote guys, and I need you to hit the sign up button. 00:19:15 Speaker 10: I need you to do it right now, because we're gonna lose states. So that we can't lose because we're not doing enough. 00:19:21 Speaker 4: By the way, that's commit one hundred. That is our our volunteer program. 00:19:25 Speaker 5: Go. 00:19:25 Speaker 4: By the way, we will give you one hundred names to go call, knock on doors, send postcards, send text messages to We automate everything to make it as easy as possible. And you're just kindly reminding them. 00:19:40 Speaker 7: We're not feeding you into the meat grinder of here's one hundred Democrats. 00:19:44 Speaker 8: You need to convince them to be conservative. 00:19:46 Speaker 7: These are people Republicans, we've identified as Republican or as very likely Republican voters. And it's all about getting over that hump. We point out in a midterm the person who wins the race every single time, it would have been steamrolled if it was twenty twenty four because turnout is down. The winner is who loses fewer votes. 00:20:06 Speaker 4: Compared to twenty eight and its base turnout, namely it's base turnout, which is why that's right. We have to ask the base, what do you care about the most? What is going to animate you the most, and what is going to give you, you know, assurances that voting Republican actually gets something done. This is one of the reasons why getting the Save America Act passed is not a simple matter of you know, preference. No, it's existential to the midterms, because if you get that passed and we keep putting up big ice deportation numbers, you're sending a message to the base, Hey, we hear you. We know what your priorities were, and we're getting them accomplished. I would also add on that list, getting some sort of piece resolution in Iran, which feels like the Great White Whale at this point, getting that wrapped up and put a bow on it, because we need to see gas prices come back down. We need to see energy prices come back down. That's specifically true Rich in a state like Alaska, where inflation and hits these guys harder than most. Very just the cost of getting goods anywhere in the interior of that state. And explain the dynamics, by the way, Rich, with you know, Alaska's kind of an odd duck in the sense that urban cores tend to vote Republican. It's the Yeah, it's the rurals that vote Democrat. 00:21:19 Speaker 10: Right, Why is that that? That's right, it's it's backward. 00:21:21 Speaker 11: It's one of these amazing relics of a bygone era, which is if you go back and read Kevin Phillips the Emerging Republican Majority, you can see it in other states. 00:21:34 Speaker 10: It's like, why does Alaska still do this? 00:21:37 Speaker 11: You have Indigenous and Eskimo and you know, Native American and other tribal voters that live on the outskirts and in the you know, the rural areas, and they have been Democratic for a while. 00:21:49 Speaker 10: The I would say, okay, let me put it this one. 00:21:52 Speaker 11: This is why Lisa Murkowski really did a lot of damage trying to survive a primary. 00:21:57 Speaker 10: They did change how voting is done. 00:22:00 Speaker 11: So the rank choice issue is yeah, she guys, I'll tell you right now when it happened. I basically said that Lisa Murkowski has single handedly ensured that a Democrat will win Alaska in a bad cycle for Republicans because you need that turnout to swamp the rest of the state. And it's like the I don't want to say inner city because it's not an inner city like we know inner cities, but in the urban areas in Alaska, it tends to be the more big business once upon a time, almost gentrifying these areas, and that used to be a Republican voting block. 00:22:34 Speaker 10: The reason it's held up until now. 00:22:37 Speaker 11: Is because of the kind of economy that Alaska supports. So in other states like Georgia, when you see a place like Atlanta get gentrified and more urban and population growth in Phoenix just happened in Phoenix too, it goes blue. But in Alaska, economy is politics. So when a Republican governor like Kemp invites a tiny tinsel town to Atlanta so they can have a mini Hollywood there, you're bringing a liberal industry which will bring liberal jobs and liberal families and liberal people, and that's going to turn the state. 00:23:09 Speaker 10: But in Alaska it's different. 00:23:10 Speaker 11: We're talking about energy and other industries that are actually pro Republican industries. What Lisa Murkowski did with rank choice voting was a betrayal of the highest order. 00:23:19 Speaker 10: And she pretend she didn't, but it. 00:23:21 Speaker 11: Was literally her staffer who left her office and went back to Anchorage to lobby for it. 00:23:26 Speaker 3: Got it. 00:23:27 Speaker 4: I mean, she's a Democrat. Rkowski as a Democrat with an R next to her name. 00:23:31 Speaker 11: Which, let me just say, which is why we can't lose these seats, guys, because I have been told and I don't know if you guys know this, but I have been told by more than one person on multiple occasions. Lisa Murkowski has said that if my vote is going to be the balance of power, I'm going to leave the Republican Party. I will caucus with Democrats and call myself an independent. And she's definitely going to do it if Susan Collins loses in Maine and then her vote matters, because that is her friend, and she will take her life little tantrum like the rhino establishment does all the time. 00:24:03 Speaker 10: This is real. So you can't afford to lose seats like this. We just can't do it. 00:24:08 Speaker 11: Just to tell people who may be like concerned, Well, I don't want to chase the vote because I don't want to. It's uncomfortable. I'm a little nervous. I don't want to talk to angry people. 00:24:16 Speaker 10: Anyone you run into. 00:24:18 Speaker 11: Who's angry at the war. Look what happened last week. I mean, of course, you're always nice. People are easier to talk to than you might think they are. 00:24:24 Speaker 3: But you can just simply them too rich. 00:24:27 Speaker 10: I love talking to Americans. 00:24:29 Speaker 3: I love it. 00:24:30 Speaker 10: I think they're great. I know some of them are mean. 00:24:33 Speaker 11: It happens you get a bad apple, but overall, they're really pleasant and interesting people to talk to. And I mean, simply put, guys, you could answer that very easily. Well, look what happened last week with the Vice president and Secretary Kennedy. If Harris was elected, no matter how angry you are with Iran or anything else, if Harris was elected, do you think we would have gotten the White Wolves and the Wolves and White Coats report showing that doctors mutilated our children with these trans surgeries for for a profit, for for the prospect of having a lifetime patient who needed to be on their care like they're acting like stockbrokers or something, or trying to build a book. 00:25:12 Speaker 10: We never would have gotten that. 00:25:13 Speaker 11: I mean that that report alone, that may be one of the most evil things we've ever seen. And the Vice President and Secretary Kennedy uncovered that. 00:25:21 Speaker 4: We would never have immigration there are pretend to exactly exactly exactly, so we're going to put a pin in Alaska. But but five alarm fire. We need to hold that seat. And right now turnout is down. We need to get turned out up. Yes, we need to invest money. You know, we got to talk about Alaska more. Secondly, Rich, Alexander Vinman went down bad. 00:25:49 Speaker 8: He's spent he outspent this. 00:25:52 Speaker 7: Like sixteen million to five hundred thousands, even more than that total humiliates to take away here Rich, interesting the. 00:25:59 Speaker 10: Matt tells the story. 00:26:00 Speaker 11: Guys, I hope we've seen the last of Alexander Vinman. Who should be in a hole. 00:26:05 Speaker 10: He should not. He should be in a hole some way or for what he did. 00:26:08 Speaker 11: To Trump in the first administration, let alone running for US Senate. 00:26:13 Speaker 3: Oh, I mean in a deep dark federal under the state. 00:26:16 Speaker 10: Yes, I mean like in a deep dark hole for traders. I don't mean in a whole. Oh yeah, you knows a. 00:26:21 Speaker 3: Dig Yeah exactly. I'm mailing you out of that one. 00:26:24 Speaker 10: Thank you, thank you for that one. 00:26:26 Speaker 11: No, I mean he should be in a hole where traders go, brother, like where Robert Hanson was thrown after he got caught spying for ambiaf for the Russians. That's where people like Alexander Vinman should be. But if you look at the map. 00:26:36 Speaker 10: It tells the story. And it's interesting. 00:26:38 Speaker 11: All of the white Democratic, you know, rich democrat uber kind of credentialed class areas voted for Vinman. Everywhere else did not, so he got he got the votes of that kind of cry baby old school Mitt Ryan, Mitt Romney Rhino who converted to being a Democrat, which was a tiny, tiny I mean, Republicans have been romping with voter registration by party because those people were never enough to offset the gains that you get from trump Ism. And that's what he represents. It's it's so textbook and it's so appropriate. He represents the dying wing of the party that should be cast aside. They're Democrats anyway, and we should move forward with trump Ism in its purest form because you get so much more out of it. And looking at the map, that's what you see, you know, parts of Monroe, which is southwestern and the Keys. 00:27:30 Speaker 10: Of course, that's exactly where I would have expected. 00:27:34 Speaker 11: Vinman to get some of his support. In some of the Tampa Bay areas where you know there was once upon a time Republican slides until Trump came along. You have those orphan Romney whiny voters who still think it's nineteen eighty right. I mean, that's who Alexander Vinman got, and she got everywhere else and he got humiliated and it. 00:27:53 Speaker 4: Was crazy though poetic justice. Listen to this, I mean listen. I'm not going to cry any tears. But the polling was off here big, and the prediction markets were off big. 00:28:02 Speaker 3: But look, listen, is. 00:28:03 Speaker 4: And should make a lot of money off of Thatt twelve. 00:28:06 Speaker 13: I don't understand, like, there's no sexualization at a drag show. It's just people dressing up and singing and performing. I've taken my children to drag shows and it's fun. It's entertainment, it's wholesome entertainment, and it's nothing wrong. 00:28:23 Speaker 5: It's just like, I don't I don't get it. 00:28:27 Speaker 11: She just beat out, thank you Democrats that thank you. Yeah, that's what you'll hand the country to. 00:28:38 Speaker 4: Midterm elections are coming up. In control of Congress is on the line. If there's one thing financial markets hate, it's uncertainty, and uncertainty is exactly what the next few months are going to bring in twenty twenty four. If it taught us anything, it's that uncertainty breeds volatility between now and November could be one of the most volatile stretches for the stock market and the economy, So you owe it to yourself to have a plan. Here's the good part. There's a simple way to protect what you've built, and that's gold. Physical gold and silver. Let you hedge against that volatility, and there's no better partner for it than Noble Gold Investments. For over a decade, Noble Gold has helped everyday Americans protect their wealth with precious metals. They make it simple, they make it easy, and they make it safe. 00:29:23 Speaker 3: You can trust them. 00:29:24 Speaker 4: Give them a call eight seven seven six four six five three four seven. That's eight seven seven six four six five three four seven, Or visit them online at Noblegoldinvestments dot com slash kirk and find out how to protect yourself, your wealth and your family Noblegoldinvestments dot com, slash kirk. Election days coming, don't let it arrive without a plan. And here's the best part to celebrate America's two fiftieth just Mention the Charlie Kirk Show. When you call Nobel Gold and they'll send you a free ten ounce silver bar when you open a new qualified account. Mention the Charlie Kirks show, that's all you gotta do, and they'll do the rest. We turn our sites with the Great Rich Barris to Florida. 00:30:05 Speaker 3: Florida. Man, what a state, What a state that just seems to do things well. 00:30:10 Speaker 7: I was so excited yet again when we were watching the primary results that we were thirty minutes past when poles had closed, not even in the entire state. The Panhandle was still had poles open, but we were at sixty percent of the vote counted. Yeah, and we knew basically one of the result. Listen before I had dinner. 00:30:28 Speaker 4: I understand that DeSantis Trump there's bad blood there, all that stuff, but you got to give credit where it's dude. DeSantis has done oh yeah, a phenomenal He is the model for Republican governor. 00:30:38 Speaker 3: There's no doubt. 00:30:39 Speaker 4: I think by the way we talk about the Floridification of Arizona, there's somebody Charlie really believed in. 00:30:44 Speaker 3: And I think we have a great shot. 00:30:45 Speaker 4: With Biggs plus our get out the vote, our chase the vote operation in Arizona, We're way ahead of where we were in twenty twenty four. We're way guys, as far as stabishing. 00:30:55 Speaker 11: Yeah, I mean Arizona the primary results alone is a testament to chase the vote. It's estimate to what you guys are doing. Because in a you know, a guy like me who does what I do in a sea of like bad news with primary turnout, Arizona was the one area where he's, oh, thank god. 00:31:11 Speaker 10: You know in Florida wasn't terrible. 00:31:13 Speaker 11: It wasn't as good as people are making it out to be last night, but it wasn't terrible. Florida Republicans you can typically the core of the Republican Party you can count on getting out. They did this in eighteen to two, by the way, the only way that we were able to defeat Bill Nelson, and thank the Lord prevent Andrew Gillim who some of us did know who Andrew Gilliam was and what he did with his night life. 00:31:35 Speaker 10: By the way, the media just wouldn't cover it. 00:31:37 Speaker 11: We I mean, thirty thousand votes, guys, we thirty thousand I know. 00:31:41 Speaker 4: Man, those are the most important thirty thousand votes ever ever, Like, I mean, you know, that's more important on that history. And seriously, because does you lose Florida, you know, we maybe we don't get Trump. You know, maybe we don't get oh yeah, the majorities that we have. So anyways, Florida has been a success story. We have to give credit words. 00:32:00 Speaker 10: Due throughout Glenda, you know, I mean this was important. 00:32:04 Speaker 11: Broward County are look at how much our vote shairs have risen since Brenda was thrown out of that at the Supervisor of Elections. 00:32:10 Speaker 4: Of course, because people running the elections matters a great, great deal. 00:32:15 Speaker 3: And that's another proof point. And oh it's the most secure election every Oh. 00:32:19 Speaker 4: Well, how come when you get rid of these these crooks, things turn around real quick, stunningly, He's stunning suddenly. So okay, so everything, everything's on the up and up. We can totally trust this stuff. Oh you get rid of a crook and things turn around. Oh interesting, So let's talk about Byron Donalds. Everybody wants to talk about that. He wins handily, which we expected. James fishback. We've got a couple of graphs here, and I know, the reason I want to bring this up is because you made a big deal and rightly so with the Thomas Massey uh where he lost his primary. But it was like it was, you know, fifty five sixty five and over that got him over the top. Meanwhile, all the younger voters, that's right, we're voting for Thomas Massey. We see a similar with James Fishback. I saw this with the enthusiasm for him with younger voters in that state. So throw some of these graphics up where he's getting. Basically, he's edging out Byron Donald's with the thirty five and undercrab. Byron's holding his own, but he was doing well with younger voters. What's your takeaway from the Byron Donalds race. 00:33:20 Speaker 10: Yeah, I think there are two things. 00:33:22 Speaker 11: One is the age, and there's some overlap here with these demographics. But interestingly, Fishback was doing a lot better with younger voters. 00:33:28 Speaker 10: He won a lot of these university areas. 00:33:30 Speaker 11: I mean he tied in one of them, and I think they tried to community note me because there was actually a reporting eraror at the time I made that statement. It was just this like pathetic attempt to try to cover up what we have been talking about now for months. 00:33:43 Speaker 10: This is an issue. 00:33:44 Speaker 11: I wish Byron would have handled this campaign a little bit differently. I wish you would have embraced the challenge. They had no chance to beat him. Let's be serious, because I worry now that he may have turned off some of these younger voters that he will need, because unfortunately, this race is going to be close than it should be. And what does that mean. I think Byron's gonna win. I'm not at a place where other people are. But it does mean money has to go to Byron that could go to Zach Lane in Iowa, you know what I mean. So it's kind of unnecessary, it's unfortunate. 00:34:14 Speaker 10: But Byron. This is the second part that's interesting. 00:34:17 Speaker 11: Byron actually did well in the areas where there's like true new maga that's not less white. So even though turnout wasn't gangbuster in Miami, Dad, look at how much better he did in Miami, Dad, look at how much better he did in. 00:34:32 Speaker 10: The Gold Coast. 00:34:33 Speaker 11: So the reason he couldn't get above fifty is because in the Big ben and in the Panhandle, in some central Florida, he didn't do as well as he did in South Florida. So had there had been bigger turnout numbers among Hispanics and the new Maga that Trump brought in in twenty four, Byron would have won by a larger margin. And by the way, just to put it in all in context, any other cycle, Byron's margin would have been sufficient to be escaping any kind of criticism. It's just that people are going to jump on it right now because of course, uh, the it was a narrative surrounding you know, the this race and whether or not it was ever he should have ever debated, and you know, nonsense like that. 00:35:11 Speaker 10: But any other any other. 00:35:14 Speaker 11: Primary, and this would have been a romping by any standard. I mean, he's just got work to do, and he's got to go out and talk to those voters. You know, yeah guys, I mean people calling them, Yeah, dismissing people and calling them anti Semites is stupidity. 00:35:28 Speaker 10: Can we stop doing that? 00:35:29 Speaker 3: Now? Doing that? I mean it just as a general tactic. 00:35:35 Speaker 10: Are we the left now? Are we the left? 00:35:37 Speaker 3: Now? There are there is legitimate multi semetry. 00:35:40 Speaker 7: I will say be Frank James Fishback ran an anti Semitic campaign, well, and like a racist campaign. 00:35:46 Speaker 8: He called Byron Donald's a slave. 00:35:49 Speaker 10: That comment out there, the anti Semite stuff. I mean, none of the none. 00:35:53 Speaker 11: Of the people we spoke to who are supporting Fishback said they were supporting Fishback because they hate Israel or. 00:35:58 Speaker 10: They were anti city. 00:35:59 Speaker 4: Here's rich I don't think it's a good tactic. I don't think it's a winning tactic. 00:36:04 Speaker 10: Stupid. 00:36:05 Speaker 4: You can have that conversation and it can be legitimate, but as far as political tactics go, it's it's it's a loser. Here's here's what else I'll say, rich Corey Mills goes down. This was a much washed yeah. Yeah, and that was kind of my perspective. Apparently President Trumpet had suggested he drop out. 00:36:21 Speaker 3: He refused. There's ethics complaints about him. 00:36:24 Speaker 4: He's had a really colorful history, let's just say it that way, with some ex girlfriends restracting. 00:36:30 Speaker 10: He ages the president never endorse him, he refused. So, yeah, you know, I stay away from this one. Stay away from this one. This is not a good dude. 00:36:39 Speaker 11: This is not somebody we want to be the face of this movement. We all know his issues and I don't have to go run them down here now on the show. But guys, this is the exact worst kind of Republican. They're hurting our brand. They're out there pretending the embody evangelical values. He's on his knees to a law three days a week, I mean three days, three times a day. You know, he's chasing every tale out there under twenty one. I mean, let's just call it crap, bro, I mean, God, goodbye, Corey. 00:37:02 Speaker 4: Good good rises. So Ryan Elijah, how do we like his chances? Trump has now endorsed him? I said, Ryan Elijah running this place. Ryan stands for everything MAGA and is respected. 00:37:12 Speaker 11: Like yeah, yeah, I like it better than I like Corey's. I mean, this is something you have Mark on the show today, Mark Alpern, this is something I mean, you know, I was trying to the point I was trying to make you have a candidate. 00:37:22 Speaker 10: As Corey Mills. 00:37:24 Speaker 11: You cannot keep that seat in the likely Republican category anymore. 00:37:27 Speaker 10: It's like in an election. 00:37:28 Speaker 11: Where you can get swept away and if you're not careful, we will be. You can't have people like Corey Mills staining the ticket. And that is a seat that could have been gone. So I like our chances to hold it now. Of course it's almost essentially an open seat race, but it's. 00:37:42 Speaker 10: Still a better shot at holding the seat. 00:37:45 Speaker 5: Now. 00:37:45 Speaker 4: That's the former TV anchor good brand name idea in that area. 00:37:49 Speaker 10: So good communicator. 00:37:50 Speaker 4: Yeah, it's good communicator, Rich Barris, big data poll, the people's pundit. Gotta focus on alask I gotta shore up our ranks there, get out the vote, Chase to join us at tpaction dot com, Slash one hundred to join our commit one hundred and help chase down low propensity of Republicans. That's what this is all about. Win win, win, fight fight fight, be a part of the solution. 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 ref I 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 debt. Many of them don't even know how much they owe. Why REFI can help. Just go to wyrefi dot com. That's the letter, Why then refi dot com. And remember y Refi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to wyrefi dot com and tell them your friend Andrews sent you. 00:39:15 Speaker 3: We have a treat in. 00:39:16 Speaker 4: Store for you, and that is, of course Mark Halprin, friend of the show, editor in chief of two Way TV, host of Next Up on the Mecan Kelly Network. Mark, welcome back to the show. Thank you for making some time for us today. We had a big primary night last night, and there's some underlying stories about John Ossoff, Natalie Harp, Mark Kelly, all kinds of stuff to get to here, but let's start with Florida and Alexander Vinman. That was a big polling miss. It was a big betting markets miss. What do you take from that. 00:39:48 Speaker 14: Well, the betting markets often follow the polls. Since those folks don't, I'll often have other data to go buy, so I think those are correlated. Typically, he's you know, he only moved to Florida a few years ago. He'd never run for anything. He was running against the state legislator who's part of the DSA, and that's a movement versus a campaign. He chose not to spend all his money on the assumption he'd win. So I know people are casting this as a shock and a surprise, But you know, she ran a more energy energizing campaign, and he's an outsider. And even if Florida is filled with outsiders, you know, all politics is local and she's a local person. 00:40:26 Speaker 2: And he's not. 00:40:26 Speaker 14: So I'm not too surprised. And the disparity in the spending. We saw that in Michigan. We saw that to some extent in Wisconsin. DSA candidates have movements, and movements beeat money every time. 00:40:37 Speaker 8: Mark, I wonder what you make. 00:40:39 Speaker 7: Dave Weigel at Smaphore he had a take in response to Vinman's loss, and he said that Republicans have been smart to shift away from Democrats are going to impeach Trump if we lose the midterms too. We have communism on the way. They're really radical, and he says the flip side of this is Democrats are learning all of the resistance stuff from twenty nineteen. People who are heroes of the First impeachment, people who have made their name by kind of being these bold resistance figures against Trump in the bureaucracy or whatever. That it doesn't have the mileage at once, did it Maybe never had that much mileage, and maybe the messages no one should care about twenty nineteen or twenty twenty anymore. 00:41:21 Speaker 8: What do you think of that? 00:41:22 Speaker 2: Well, I think there's some truth wound through that. 00:41:25 Speaker 14: But I think Trump rangement syndrome may not be at its all time high, but it's still pretty high within the party. And I don't think I don't think electability is top of mind for a lot of these Democratic voters. It will be in the presidential but I don't think it is here. So this guy was not a good candidate, and she ran an energized campaign. I think that's probably the main lesson the notion that he was rejected because he's associated with impeachment. I just don't think that's true. Given who the electorate is. The electorate is Democrats, a lot of whom are for anybody who does anything negative towards Donald Trump. 00:41:58 Speaker 4: What do you make of the general election prospects in that race. Ashley Moody, who filled the seat right so this will be her first actual election run here for Marco Rubio's old spot, and then versus Angela Nixon, who has set some absolutely nutty things. 00:42:17 Speaker 7: I mean absolutely nutty things, And would she be the first, I think, like lawmaker to have themselves been one of those, like holding a megaphone screaming at people in a legislative chamber. 00:42:28 Speaker 8: There's footage for doing that, there is, there is. 00:42:30 Speaker 14: Yeah, this is not my idea, I read it somewhere this morning, but I think it's the right thing to say. The Democrats are lucky, The establishment Democrats are lucky that she won the nomination. Had it been Vinment, there would have been some donors who thought, yeah, that's a good investment, and they would have diverted money to an unwinnable race in Florida. Whereas now the national donor class and even maybe even the grassroots donors, they're not going to see this as a winnable race. And so Democrats dodge wasting twenty to fifty million dollars unwinnable race. 00:43:01 Speaker 3: Well that's bad for us unfortunately. 00:43:03 Speaker 4: Nevertheless, all right, so let's turn our attention to John oss Off. 00:43:07 Speaker 3: We got a clip here to set the stage stop for. 00:43:10 Speaker 2: He doesn't want to do the job. 00:43:14 Speaker 15: He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the Emir of Qatar. Why did you decide to invoke Natalie Harp specifically in that speech? 00:43:28 Speaker 5: Jen? 00:43:28 Speaker 15: Thank you for having me. And here's the point. We're in wartime. The commander in chief has mired us in this geopolitical disaster. People have lost their lives, our naval logistics are fraid, the global energy system is in crisis. And he retreats into this bubble of West wing aids who are his security blanket to make him feel good about himself. 00:44:00 Speaker 3: All right, so he kind of walks it back a little bit. 00:44:02 Speaker 4: But this has been all the talk right now, and then you've got CNN's Aaron Burnett bringing on Natalie Harp's brother. President Trump is calling him pee wee Herman. Everything under the surface, though, is it feels like John Ossoff is not only trying to win his Senate races, he's posturing as something of a national figure taking on Trump directly. And by the way, just I think a really gross smear of Natalie Harp, who we have no indication of anything that other than she's just a sweetheart that is loyal to the president. 00:44:33 Speaker 3: He denies that he's running. What's your take. 00:44:36 Speaker 14: I don't think he's inclined to run, but I think he knows there could be a vacuum and the pull of which would be quite strong that he might have to consider it, but not till after he's reelected. I really don't know what he was doing. The fact that he backed off so quickly leads me to believe that perhaps he didn't think through what would what the reaction would be. Maybe maybe he knew and he cleverly just said I'll say once and never again. I'll be super curious to see if the word Natalie escapes his lips between now an election day. But he certainly has put a big target on his back. He certainly has made himself very unpopular with MAGA. I don't know that it's improved his ties to the Democrats or the enthusiasm for him, because it was already pretty high. And he already says lots of things about Donald Trump that don't have any blowback from any quarter within the party. So I'm not really sure what he was up to. And I'm not really sure this has any enduring me eeting. I'd be surprised if it were alive. Next week is a story. 00:45:34 Speaker 7: Well, it is interesting that question of was this design more to make Maga matter or would resonate with Democrats, because I'll admit I feel like I'd not heard a lot of this woman, Like I sort of jogged my memory once people were talking about it. But I guess, is this a blue sky meme? Maybe that if you're really invested in Democrat politics, they just throw around like, oh, Trump has this mistress who runs around with him, and they just take it as. 00:45:58 Speaker 3: She looks she's blonde and all this stuff. Yeah, Mark, I. 00:46:01 Speaker 14: Mean the reaction of the room suggested the people there knew. I'm surprised at how many people on the right say they didn't really focus on her, didn't. 00:46:11 Speaker 2: Know who she was. 00:46:12 Speaker 14: She's been written about quite a bit, primarily because of some of the notes suggesting a lot of familiarity that she's written to the President, and this is true. There are people in the White House who do not like her influence over the President, who do not like their closeness, and that has fueled leaking of some of her notes the President that has sueled some negative quotes about her, not from Democrats, not from the media, but from Trump loyalists within the White House. So I'm surprised at how little people seem to have known about her in some quarters. But as I said, you mentioned her two weeks ago before John also spoke on MS and MS. Now they knew who she was. That constituency knows. 00:46:51 Speaker 2: Who she is. 00:46:52 Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean to be fair though with it. 00:46:54 Speaker 4: I mean not to get too much into the palace intrigue of the White House, But I mean there was people that didn't like Charley's influence over the president, right, So that's gonna happen anytime somebody wins the president's trust. But you know, I just I have to say in general, the smearing without allegations, and by the way, if he didn't know that it was going to be taken as some sort of tawdry affair a mistress of the president's I don't believe that for a second. But I just think it's untoured. I think it should be it should remain out of our politics as much as we can. And then targeting people's family. The you know, rapid response went after a CNN reporter's family. Then CNN had I guess the somebody that claims to be the brother of Natalie on and I didn't like it either way. I'm just gonna say it that way as somebody who's lived through this stuff where you know, unfairly maligned and smeared, I didn't like it either way. Let's talk about the horse race in twenty twenty eight. Okay, we have you on because you have insights and you have sources within Democrat politics, and you're willing to graciously share those with us here now if you are now looking at the field. So there was this interesting quote that I saw. Mark Kelly was in Georgia campaigning for John Ossoff. Somebody asked him what about an Asoff Kelly ticket? And he said, why don't you reverse the names? What about reversing the names? So that added intrigue there. How do you see this shaping up and understanding that it is a long ways out, but there is a vacuum on the left? Osoff is Jewish, but Shapiro's Jewish? Is that going to be a non starter for them? What's your newest take on this freshest intel? 00:48:36 Speaker 14: Yeah, thank you for your kind words. I think there's two big questions looming over this this forming field, separate from the question of who's actually going to run. One is who's going to fill the progressive lane. There are three names to hear. Bernie Sanders maybe too old, AOC maybe doesn't want to run, Rocanna maybe not up to leading a movement. One of those three or a fourth person two be determined, is going to have to fill that lane. Until we know who fills that lane, it's very difficult to gain at this process. 00:49:07 Speaker 2: Second, you named two people. 00:49:09 Speaker 14: Ram Emmanuel and Josh Shapiro. Maybe you said us off in Shapiro, Ram Emmanuel, Governor Pritzker, Alissa Slotkin, all Jewish, Jared Polis Jewish. It's an irony in a paradox that at a time when American Jews within the Democratic Party have never been more under siege in the modern era, you have more perspective Jewish candidates than we've ever seen, maybe total in American history, all potentially poised, all potentially to poise to run. I think that you have to look at candidates who can do two or three of the following things, name I D fundraising and draw attention Okay, there's only one person in the race right now who can do all three of those things, or one person who may run, I should say, who can do. 00:49:58 Speaker 2: All three of those things? AOC. 00:50:02 Speaker 14: I'm moving her way up in my September eight for twenty eight rankings the most likely Democrats. I'm really thinking anew about her chances and the likelihood that children, because I think she and Sanders are going. 00:50:14 Speaker 2: To sit down and talk about it. 00:50:17 Speaker 14: Probably one of the two of them has to do it if they want their movement to have the person who can lead this. So that's one. And then on the question of who runs. If you can't raise tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, if you can't get on Monday night football and meet the press and your show and mine, if you can't become nationally known within the party, you're gonna take a good hard look at running and say, do I really have a chance to win this thing? 00:50:47 Speaker 2: Right now? 00:50:49 Speaker 14: I see four people who are what I call aircraft carriers who can build those three things or has them already, Newsome Harris, AOC and Josh Shapiro. Everybody else, I think is going to take a look at this and wonder if it's really a decent enough chance that it's worth all the things you put your family through to run. 00:51:10 Speaker 7: Is there anyone who could pull a leap frog where you know, much like JD. Vance was a senator only a couple of years and then he's Vice president. If abdu al Sayad wins his Senate race, could he plausibly just vary abruptly rise up as a potential front runner or any of these other high profile candidates they have running for Senate governor in purple or red states. 00:51:33 Speaker 2: They could. 00:51:34 Speaker 14: I mean, Barack Obama won in two thousand and four and didn't run till two thousand and eight. Mike Dukakis Scott re elected governor of Massachusetts and then ran but not elected for the first time. So look, if el said does win, he'll be a force in the party, without doubt, without a doubt, would he Could he turn right around and run for president? 00:51:54 Speaker 2: I think that's unlikely. I think it's unlikely. 00:51:57 Speaker 14: People talk all the time about people coming from nowhere that say, well, Obama came from nowhere. No, when Barack Obama was at the Harvard Law School, people talked about him as a potential president. People say, Donald Trump came for nowhere. No, Donald Trump talked about running for president for three decades. So amos mark me Dan as a skeptic that somebody who people have never talked about running for president suddenly steps into this thing and wins the nomination. I think you're going to have some combination of Harris Newsome in Shapiro running probably two of those three, and I think it'd be very hard to take the nomination away from any of those three if you've never played the game before. 00:52:33 Speaker 7: What about names, I feel like I heard a decent amount in the past, and yet they've fallen off, Which is, we have Roy Cooper, who's been governor of North Carolina a long time and you're now running exactly Andy Basheer. So we have these moderate ish Democrats in purple or in Kentucky's case, deep red states who've been pretty politically successful. They have you know, they're just old white guys. It's a very safe look. They don't have any DEI stuff, they don't have any radicalism concerns. I feel we heard these names thrown around actually in twenty four a little bit, and they've they've gone away. 00:53:08 Speaker 8: But could one of them come roaring back. 00:53:10 Speaker 14: Well, I'm not skeptical of them because they're white men, skeptical of them because I don't think they have the bizazz required to win a nomination. I don't think they have the capacity to navigate the dominant ascended socialist wing of the party. So I'm skeptical that those. 00:53:26 Speaker 2: Guys can do it. 00:53:27 Speaker 14: But let's see who goes actually not just up to the starting line, but enters the race. Because while people talk blithely about their being twenty candidates, I think a lot of these people who are talked about aren't going to run. And maybe somebody like a Cooper who's not talked about much, does run. Remember you got to survive a vet running for Senate, running for governor, it's not the same. And some of these folks have things in their background that they, if they're wise, they'll know they'll have to answer for even though they don't have to answer for them when they run for these lower, lower offices, And they may not want to put themselves in their family through that. 00:54:00 Speaker 3: What about buddhaj Edge Whitmer. 00:54:05 Speaker 2: I don't think. I don't think. 00:54:06 Speaker 14: I don't think Whitmer will run. I take boota Edge much more seriously than most people. I put him in the second tier now, behind the four I mentioned. Uh, look, first of all of all the people talked about, I think he's one of the few who I have a high degree of confidence will run. And that you know, you got to play to win. You can't be the nominee if you don't run. So there's that number two. He's I don't think anybody else is gonna run. Who's won a primary or caucus unless Bernie once. And that shows you something. He won Iowa when he ran for president. That ain't easy to win the Iowa caucuses. And uh, I think he's got enormous skill. I know he's I know he's got some drawbacks in terms of winning votes, including a lack of support from black voters so far. But he's a very smart and able guy. He works really hard. And I'll tell you this, he's got probably the sharpest elbows and his team have the sharpest elbows of any of these camps. And uh that that you know, in a competitive primary, having sharp elbows is usually pretty good trait to have. 00:55:02 Speaker 4: Yeah, and he's passed his paternity leave now so he can devote himself fully. 00:55:07 Speaker 2: Got nothing but time. 00:55:08 Speaker 4: Yep, he's dear lord. I I you know, if we can get a JD. Marco ticket, I would still like our chances of twenty twenty. But that's way far down the line and we got a lot of work to do. 00:55:22 Speaker 8: Years goes by pretty fast. 00:55:23 Speaker 3: Yeah, well, yeah, that work. 00:55:24 Speaker 14: To do won't won't be two years by next summer. By less than a year from now, we'll have a pretty good sense of what the contours of both sides look like. 00:55:32 Speaker 3: I think Mark Halprin, you're the man. Thank you for the time, as always. 00:55:36 Speaker 2: Thank you guys. 00:55:36 Speaker 3: Great to see you have a great day, you too. 00:55:41 Speaker 4: I had the honor of a lifetime to call Charlie a friend, and what I remember most wasn't just what people saw on stage. It was what was behind the scenes. That was an unwavering commitment to his faith, his love for his family, and his genuine desire to encourage others to live with courage and conviction. Charlie believed that following Christ wasn't something you compartmentalize. He didn't put it in a box. He lived it out loud. It shaped how he lived, how he served, how he treated people. Every single day. Charlie Kirk American Martyr captures that heart. This documentary isn't just simply about remembering Charlie. It's an invitation for each of us to ask what kind of legacy we're building and whether we're willing to stand firm in our own faith when it's tested. I hope that you'll watch it with your family and have those conversations together. Go to Angel dot com slash Kirk. That's Angel dot com slash Kirk, become an Angel Guild member, watch Charlie Kirk, American Martyr, and help bring more stories of faith, courage and conviction to audiences around the world. Our next guest is Nathan Kauffness. 00:56:50 Speaker 3: He's the author. 00:56:50 Speaker 4: He's an author and you can sign up for his newsletter at en cofness dot com. That's nco f nas dot com. And you will know him because we mentioned him on the show yesterday. 00:57:03 Speaker 7: Blake, Yes, all right, So we've talked a bit over the last few the last couple of weeks about the Jason R. Day saga in the UK. We covered it when he was just a professor under fire. Tragically he took his own life and that's exploded to huge proportions But Nathan, welcome to the show. You're the guy who originally wrote an article on substack exposing a lot of his plagiarism, raising an eyebrow at some of his other claims. And you were the one doing this on substack, because at every step of the way, journalists, his own institution, other schools, lawyers, they were ignoring that he was a fabulous from top to bottom. And why don't you tell your story of how you ended up being the author of that piece. 00:57:48 Speaker 16: Well, thank you for having me on now. By the time I published the story on July twenty first, literally thousands of people had known about it for a year a year ago. 00:58:01 Speaker 5: First. 00:58:02 Speaker 16: Cambridge definitely knew about it in twenty twenty three, because as soon as Jason Arday was hired everybody knows the youngest black professor a DEI hired for a very very prestigious position as chair professor at Cambridge in the Faculty of Education. So he's hired in twenty twenty three, clearly unqualified for the job. But within a few months there was another academic at Plymouth marriage On University in the UK who contacted the authorities at Cambridge and showed them the evidence for his plagiarism. They basically told him to get lost, and Dave Harris posted something on his personal website which nobody paid attention to, so that went nowhere. But Cambridge knew about the story. Then they knew about the plagiarism then for sure, and they would have known for sure Jason Arday was a fabulous too because a year ago he claimed that he was attacked by a racist with a knife in his office at Cambridge, and he said he was attacked twice, but none of this was captured on CCTV, so that means the administration knew he was a plagiress. They knew his a fabulous for years and they've been covering it up. And it's anybody who asks questions is intimidated, either with lawyers or with veiled threats. It's not just a story about Cambridge. 00:59:34 Speaker 11: Though. 00:59:35 Speaker 16: I asked chat GPT so that I can't be accused of cherry picking, to give a list of all the institutions that had formal ties to Jason Arday and it came up with forty six. So forty six like the Royal Society of Arts and besides Cambridge, at Glasgow University University, the BBC where he was in had a prestigious position as editor all of these institutions, and he was just running around making telling ridiculous stories. Obviously many people knew, but either because of the threats that were issued from by Our Day or his supporters, or the fact that people simply didn't want to be called racist, which was actually the most effective mechanism for ensuring people's silence that kept the story from breaking containment. Now how did I get the story? I had my own free speech issue with Cambridge. I got in a lot of trouble when I was an employee in the philosophy faculty. In twenty twenty four, I wrote a substock essay called A Guide for the Hereditarian Revolution, which questioned some of the foundations of ideology, particularly with respect to its claim that all groups of people are in average exactly the same in terms of socially relevant characteristics. The university placed me under investigation and my college terminated my position that was a manual college, and at the end of my contract with the university in August twenty twenty five, I left. And around the time that I left is when Our Day's plagiarism and lies became an open secret among the faculty, so I didn't hear about it at the time, But finally, in June thirteenth, a whistleblower who is on the faculty at Cambridge contacted me and he told me about the story, and then I investigated it myself. I saw there's extensive plagiarism, starting with his dissertation and continuing throughout his entire career. And even the work that wasn't plagiarized was at a high school level and was itself arguably and even bigger scandal than the plagiarism. So I wrote, I wrote up a report of my findings. I posted it on sub stack, and then it blew up from there. 01:02:22 Speaker 7: And it's continuing to blow up because tragically he did take his own life, and it's made this story grow bigger and bigger. There was a rally with thousands of people who were denouncing you by name. There's left wing publications and politicians saying we need to hold the press accountable. Yesterday, an editor at one of these publications almost did this hostage video where he's apologizing for calling Professor Arda a con man. He was, and so what sort of attacks of you yourself faced, because, let's be blunt, you did the work others were too cowardly to do that. You called out a fraud and a charlatan. 01:03:03 Speaker 16: Well, if you want to know why people thousands of people knew about the story and didn't say anything, look at what's happening to me. Besides hundreds of hate letters, hate emails, death threats. There was a rally at Trafalgar Square a few days ago with fifteen thousand people, speaker after speaker denouncing me by name. I can't walk down the street in London anymore. There's a I would be murdered if now, even the press, everybody is looking for a scapegoat? Who is actually responsible for this situation? Cambridge who hired our Day knowing he was unqualified. They knew since twenty twenty three that he was a plagiarist and a fabuloust. They had three years to find a way to let him down gently, to find some other position, some non research position for him to take, or pay him to go do something else. But what they did is they set him up for public humiliation. It was totally unrealistic to think that they could bury this story for thirty one years until he retires, so they set him up and then okay, so I broke the story. Then after I broke the story, the British press published two hundred and forty nine articles about Our Day in twenty two days. Even after he resigned from Cambridge, they were still dissecting every aspect of his life from the time he was a child, And even though this had no news value because everyone on earth knew that he was a plagiarist and he had already effectively been fired from his job, and they weren't paying any attention to the people who are actually responsible for this situation, in which were the administration at Cambridge. So that's how they that's how Cambridge behaved, That's how the press behave that. The Union of British Journalists yesterday published a statement about the death of Jason Arday and they criticized only one person by name, which is me. So they insinuating that I led the harassment of Our Day causing him to. 01:05:32 Speaker 7: You wrote one article, and I mean, you can check your ex It's not like your tweeting NonStop about this. You've done you know, you've made a reasonable number of statements. 01:05:40 Speaker 4: But you but to be clear, your original sub sect that broke the story? Did you take where? Did you was there? Ad hominems were their personal tax about all of these like fabulous like stories and illnesses and all. Or did you just focus on the plagiarism aspect. 01:05:58 Speaker 16: It was very careful and factual, and it's been read by hundreds of thousands of people and no one has found even a single comma that was a mistake. I at that time, remember when I published this on July twenty first, our day, was the chair professor at Cambridge and backed by all these prestigious institutions, and you know, here I'm in Ghent, postdoctoral researcher with a sub stack in a Twitter account, So you know I was very cautious. I said, he's made all these claims about his personal life. I don't see any evidence for it. I don't see how it can be true. But you know I can't definitively refute them without direct evidence. So I'm going to focus mainly on the plagiarism and the quality of his work, which are things that I can assess with the resources available to me. So I just showed page after page after page of his writing and earlier writing that he copies from often verbatim or lightly paraphrasing, and there there was just it's just a factual report. And then I, yes, I did draw some conclusions about Dei, because I think this is a story about Dei. It's not really a story about our day and his plagiarism. It's about the incentive structure and the system that made our day possible and motivated the cover up. 01:07:34 Speaker 7: One of the things that makes me so angry is you have these publications in the UK and these politicians who are saying it was misconduct because they wrote an article about him, and so they placed him in danger or he was in distress. So they just had a responsibility to ignore that he had lied, that he had occupied a job he didn't deserve. And it just occurred to me as as Nathan was saying he couldn't walk in London safely, someone might stab him or kill him. And I think you and I both know that if that happened, these same people who say you have a moral responsibility to not write about this fraudulent professor, they would say he deserved this, that doctor coffiness, he brought this on himself because he was hateful, he was bad. 01:08:16 Speaker 3: Well, yeah, and that exactly. It's a great point, Nathan. 01:08:19 Speaker 4: If if you something terrible happened to you and God forbid that would happen, and will pray. 01:08:24 Speaker 3: For your safety. 01:08:25 Speaker 4: But they would say, well, don't be a racist, then that's what they would say. I mean, look at this. Look at this screen grab I took from Andy No's footage of this of this rally that was held in Jason Arday's honor. 01:08:39 Speaker 3: Look at that. Racism kills see that that So what's wile to me. 01:08:45 Speaker 7: The the thing is it's actually true because they were racist. They hired someone who was not qualified for this job. He hit a diversity metric. 01:08:54 Speaker 16: It's very very interesting that people are saying we shouldn't have criticized our Day, who, by the way, held a position of great influence and prestige in society. He had a lot of power. He sought publicity, he wanted to be famous, he wanted attention. But now we have to treat him with kid gloves. We're not allowed to point out his wrongdoing. That's absurd. But the people who are saying that we can't criticize our Day because of his emotional state or whatever, no one has ever asked me about my emotional state. Nobody cares about that is toughness, artistic. I'm probably at least as artistic as our day was. 01:09:39 Speaker 4: Frankly, you and Blake can have a conversation offline about that. So I mean, but I want to reframe this entire thing, right, So, these thousands of people that march in London for this serial hoaxer, con artist who then, by the way, I do think that him committing suicide is tragic and sad. 01:10:01 Speaker 3: I do. 01:10:01 Speaker 4: He obviously deserves help for that and needed help for that. But I also look at it, it's like the final act of cowardice from a man with a long string of cowardly acts, because if you think about it, he can't control the narrative. He's called out on his fraud. All of his lives are being exposed every day. 01:10:19 Speaker 7: Is a narcissism, it's like an act of revenge. 01:10:21 Speaker 4: And it's like his final act of being able to be the ultimate victim here, which is what his entire career was built upon, is that he was this victim and so put upon and racism and overcoming all this ridiculous string of illnesses and mishaps and whatever, and I don't I do not want to lift up somebody taking the cowardly way out is somehow the ideal or somehow worthy of exceptional pathos. I don't look at you as the villain of this story at all. As a matter of fact, we need people like you exposing the right in our academies and institutions of higher learning because that you listen, Jason Arday is now a totem. He's sort of like an avatar of a wider rot within the academy that must be exposed. In the United States, we had Claudine Gay, who was a plagiss who was leading Harvard, and Christopher Rufo helped take her down, among others. Right, we have Nicole Hannah Jones. You have a Abram x Kendy, These fake pseudo intellectuals that are actually activists that are being propped up by a whole system that wants them to be these figureheads that they're not qualified to be, and it actually has destructive consequences on our society. 01:11:35 Speaker 7: Give us a sense of how bad the scope of that is where you've been operating in Britain, because we know it's bad in the US, But how bad is it in Britain. 01:11:44 Speaker 8: The scope of that rot. 01:11:45 Speaker 16: Well, I should say that ar Day suffered a very severe punishment, public humiliation, ultimately paying the ultimate price, right, and he's not. It would be wrong to portray him as like some monster. 01:12:03 Speaker 5: Right. 01:12:03 Speaker 16: There are thousands, thousands of people who are far worse than Jason ar Day. He was a man who was responding to incentives created by the Dei system, where people who occupy a certain position in the woke hierarchy due to identity characteristics like skin color are simply not held to standards that other people are, and they can just make up anything and no one will challenge them, or if they are challenged, they can they can just call the person a racist and then they'll shut up. So he took advantage of that and is morally responsible for that. But he was not the worst criminal, you know. It's in my view the responsibility lies far more with the architects of the system and the people who know better and who allow it to continue. 01:13:01 Speaker 4: By the way, which is also the media. Because the media was very happy to fawn upon this man and to shower him with accolades and loud him as this great prestigious intellectual until the truth came out and then they turned out. So they created the system and they supplement it, they message behind it, and they like a good story. The Brits love a good good you know, clickbait headline. We know this about British media. So anyways, the point is there is a lot of blame to go around, but in my opinion, sir, you deserve none of it because actually we need people to be calling out the fraud and the system. Take a step back, and this is probably a good place to end this. Why is it important to call out plagiarists within the academy. 01:13:54 Speaker 16: Look, there's plagiarism, plagierism very common in academia, stealing ideas. Now, that's wrong for many reasons. By plagiarizing someone else's work, you bolster your own career, and resources are diverted to you on the assumption that you're a productive scholar, and they're diverted away from other people, including the people you steal from, who would actually be able to advance scholarship. It's just a matter also of stealing someone's intellectual property, and they have a right to get credit for that. For whatever their motivation may be. People have a right to know where ideas come from. It's a terrible thing, But for me, this story wasn't about our day, and it wasn't really about plagiarism either. It's about DEI and the fact that there were no standards applied to our day at all. So he could plagiarize shamelessly, blatantly and nobody would hold him to account. He could make up lies about his life which were obviously lies, and nobody would say anything. He could shut people down by calling them racist. People who were actually qualified were rejected for the jobs that he got, for the positions that he held, not only within universities but at many forty six other institutions. 01:15:31 Speaker 8: Nathan, you've done great work. 01:15:32 Speaker 7: Check out his substack, check out his ex thank you for coming on and reject. 01:15:37 Speaker 8: Thank you much I regime. 01:15:43 Speaker 10: For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to Charliekirk dot com