Ben Shapiro argues Trump's legacy is the Supreme Court, which overturned Roe v. Wade and blocked racial gerrymandering, invalidating Democratic "Jim Crow 2.0" claims despite Kamala Harris's protests. The host refutes accusations of voter suppression, noting rising Black approval for Trump while Democrats embrace radical figures like Graham Plattner, a candidate with a Nazi tattoo. Amidst polling showing Harris leading Democrats and controversies involving false conspiracy theories against Candace Owens, Shapiro concludes that demographic shifts and party radicalization, not systemic racism, are driving political losses. [Automatically generated summary]
A lot of people these days on the supposed right are deeply unhappy with President Trump.
Some of them are even saying they regret their vote for President Trump.
These people are idiots.
On the basis of President Trump's astonishingly great Supreme Court alone, they are idiots.
Obviously, President Trump has done a lot of great things.
He shut the border.
He arrested Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, wiped out DEI in the executive branch, went after the trans movement, attacked Iran's nuclear and missile capacity, and a lot more.
But his greatest legacy by far, his most lasting legacy by far, Will be the astounding Supreme Court that he put into place.
They overturned Roe versus Wade.
They allowed states to ban the transgender mutilation of children.
They've stood for religious freedom.
And now, in yet another amazingly courageous decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that courts cannot force states to draw racist congressional districts.
And Democrats are fighting mad.
Surprise!
If you say we should not draw congressional districts based on race, then you must be the racist.
We'll get to all of it.
Plus, Erica Kirk directly taking on Candace Owens at long last, and the Democrats embracing their Nazi standing.
Senate candidate in Maine.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
So, President Trump's greatest legacy will be the Supreme Court.
Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
This Supreme Court is the most constitutionally protective Supreme Court in modern American history by far.
And they showed it this week when they ruled that courts can't force states to draw racist congressional districts.
So, Hakeem Jeffries, the House Minority Leader, finally got it right for once by accident.
He says this is the Trump court.
It's not the Roberts court, which is true because when Justice Roberts was appointed, three of these justices were not on the court.
Here is Hakeem Jeffries giving full credit to President Trump.
He means to blame President Trump, but he is right.
This is President Trump's court.
He's the one who created it, and this court is great.
That doesn't mean they always rule for President Trump.
They don't.
But it does mean he gets credit for the fact that this court is fabulous.
We see the need for it just today in today's Supreme Court decision, which was a despicable decision that is a return to Jim Crow, taking decades of hard work, sweat, blood, and tears, and even people dying for the right to vote, to prevent racial discrimination in the right to vote.
The idea that white people are trying to stop black people from voting in the United States is ridiculous.
First of all, take Virginia, for example.
The white candidate, Abigail Spanberger, won 90% of the black vote.
The black candidate, Winsome Sears, won 90% of the white vote.
So it turns out the American people are not nearly as racist as Chuck Schumer wishes they were.
So he tweeted out this decision upends half a century of precedent, defies the spirit of the American civil rights movement, and reverses generations of progress toward racial justice.
And it shows that Democrats hold 24 seats in a variety of Southern states.
And after redistricting, Republicans will gain 12 more seats.
And then he added, by some estimates, this decision could lead conservative state legislatures to draw as many as 19 additional seats that favor Republicans in the House.
Okay, that is telling on himself.
The reason he's upset is not because he believes that black people are discriminated against.
It's because black people are disproportionately Democratic voters, and he believes that Democratic seats are going to disappear.
That's called normal gerrymandering.
Now, again, gerrymandering has been a part of our process since the very beginning.
There's truly no great substitute for gerrymandering, political gerrymandering, where the State legislature or state commission or another body draws the districts within a state.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
This is why I wasn't complaining when California decided to redistrict.
Texas just did it.
Florida's going to redo it or just did.
And this is the way that states work.
And there's nothing illegal about it.
It may be a bad thing, but there is no alternative to it.
Every alternative that has been tried is a giant fail.
But according to the Democrats, if you are not drawing specific black districts, right, they're the ones who want to take race into account.
If you are not drawing specific black districts, this means you are a racist.
And again, Democrats are just telling on themselves.
They believe that government must discriminate on the basis of race to stop those racist Americans.
This is their baseline belief system.
Americans are racist, just as racist as they were in 1964.
And therefore, we must have government promoted policies that benefit black people at the expense of other people.
This is why Hakeem Jeffries yesterday was suggesting that affirmative action, equity, inclusion, and also racial tolerance are all gone.
Those are not the same thing.
Racial tolerance is very, very high in the United States.
Which is why you don't need specific government policy in order to promote black people over the racism of white people.
In the aftermath of the 2008 election, they've tried to do everything that they can to eliminate and erase our journey, our struggle, our march in this country toward a more perfect union.
And now we're at a point where affirmative action is gone.
Diversity is gone, equity gone, inclusion gone, racial tolerance gone, the Voting Rights Act largely gone.
Okay, by the way, the fact that black Democrats are still there demonstrates that America is not, in fact, particularly racist.
Actually, there's something like 26 majority black districts in the United States, 24 of them are represented by a black person in those districts.
As their elected representative.
But there are well over 60 black representatives in Congress, which means a lot of white people are voting for a lot of black candidates.
I mean, that does not bespeak tremendous American racism.
Barack Obama, of course, a beneficiary of the white vote, he comes out and he says, Today's Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities.
So long as they do it under the guise of partisanship rather than explicit racial bias.
And as we'll explain in just a second, he's lying.
Basically, what the Supreme Court ruled is that you can do normal partisan gerrymandering.
You just can't decide that you're going to hurt black people because they are black.
Obama says this serves as just one more example of how a majority of the current court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach.
The good news is such setbacks can be overcome, but that will only happen if citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers.
Now, again, his tweet is self defeating.
If it turns out black citizens can mobilize and vote in record numbers, you do not have systemic barriers to voting in the United States, do you?
Which is what the VRA was designed to stop, the Voting Rights Act.
All right, coming up, Kamala Harris sounds off on the Supreme Court ruling, plus Candace Owens getting slapped down by Erica Kirk.
And we get to Graham Plattner, that's the Nazi tattoo guy being embraced by the Democratic Party a lot to come first.
Let's just be honest for a second paying 70, 80, 90 bucks a month for wireless, that is absurd.
It doesn't make any sense.
It's bloated pricing from companies that assume you're not going to bother to look elsewhere.
Meanwhile, my wireless company, PureTalk, is offering unlimited high speed data for just $34.99 a month.
That's not a gimmick.
That's the actual price.
Here's what makes things really interesting.
That same unlimited plan used to start at $55, but PureTalk keeps pushing in the opposite direction to the big carriers.
They are trying to give you more value, not less.
So now it's $34.99.
If you checked them out before and passed, check again.
The math has now changed.
Again, I'm a long time PureTalk user.
Their coverage is excellent.
Call clarity is great.
They're using the same tower networks as the big guys.
You have 30 days, no contract, no cancellation fees.
You're not locked in.
You're not gambling.
You're just testing a better option.
Switching takes about 10 minutes.
And if something goes wrong, you're talking to a US based customer service team that actually picks up the phone and helps you.
So here's the deal head on over to puretalk.comslash Shapiro.
Get unlimited high speed data for $34.99 a month.
That's puretalk.comslash Shapiro.
Stop overpaying.
Switch to puretalk, America's wireless company, today.
Meanwhile, Kamal Harris again, there is a conspiracy theory on the right that suggests that voter fraud is deciding our elections.
That there are millions of people who are voting fraudulently, which is not true.
And there is a similar countervailing conspiracy theory on the left that vast voter suppression is happening in the United States, and that is also not true.
In fact, in several elections in the recent past, the black turnout rate was higher than the comparative white turnout rate.
But here is Kamala Harris doing this routine also.
No, they have had an agenda that has been in place for decades.
To get to this very moment and beyond, which is to make it so difficult for the people to vote that they won't because they know the people are not stupid and see the corrupt, incompetent, callous administration that is in the White House right now.
So, I mean, you know, I mean, some people are just like, oh, but you're a congresswoman.
I'm a black woman first.
And so, you know, the level of disrespect that is continuously lobbed against us as black women, you know, for me, I'm like, wait a minute now, I am one of the 535 most powerful people in this country.
And for some reason, you think we're on the same level, but you're going to disrespect me?
The Supreme Court just gutted the Voting Rights Act.
I'll just say it Donald Trump and Republicans can't win majorities at the ballot box this November, so they're going back to a playbook as old as this country, making it harder for black and brown Americans to vote.
On every front, Trump and his allies are assaulting the institutions of our democracy.
Okay, so what exactly did the Supreme Court do here that is?
Totally setting off the Democrats.
Why are they going so insane?
Why are they going so nuts?
Okay, in order to understand what was the actual case here, there was a redistricting that was forced by a court in Louisiana.
And that redistricting is insane.
So I want to show you some maps.
Okay, the first map here was the original map of Louisiana's district.
Okay, this is the map of Louisiana's districts.
And what you see here is that there were six congressional districts here in Louisiana.
And what you have is a first district that is sort of disparate, and a second district that is sort of disparate, a sixth that is somewhat more cohesive, a third that is cohesive, a fourth and a fifth that are somewhat cohesive.
That's what you're looking at when you look at this map.
You have a sort of salamander like majority black district.
That would be the second congressional district in Louisiana.
That was Louisiana's map from 2013 to 2022.
Then a court ruled that they couldn't use that map.
So they drew another map.
Okay, and that map again, the congressional districts look pretty cohesive.
What you have there, and again, the way that the congressional districts are split in Louisiana is fairly even.
The Louisiana districts are not, it's not like all six districts are represented by Republicans.
That's not the way that it works.
But even if it were to work that way, that would be a partisan gerrymandering.
Now we get to the actual map.
This is the map that was mandated by the court.
Okay, the map that was mandated by the court is totally crazy because here you have.
A congressional district that stretches all the way from New Orleans to Shreveport, which is like 150 miles away.
It carves all the way through the heart of the state, like through the middle of the state, in order to unite black populations in places that are 100 miles apart.
And they did that because the court said you must have a second majority black district.
So you must discriminate.
Some white voters sued, and they said this violates the Equal Protection Clause, right?
The Equal Protection Clause says you're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race.
And the Supreme Court said that's right.
You're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race.
If you draw a district just to get black voters in it, you can't do that.
And the defense against that was no, no, no.
The Voting Rights Act says that you must do that in order so that you're not watering down black votes.
So there were basically three interlinked questions here in this particular case.
First, did that 2024 congressional map violate the Equal Protection Clause as a racial gerrymander?
And the court found yes.
Second, can compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act be a compelling interest that justified intentional race based redistricting?
And the answer is yes, but only very narrowly.
So, Section 2 has to be very narrowly applied.
Like, when there's intent to draw a congressional map to harm black people, and that's the open intent of the thing, then you can invoke Section 2.
When does Section 2 require redistricting?
Only when circumstances create a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred.
So, Justice Alito is writing.
He was joined by all the conservative justices.
Kagan dissented, and she was joined by Sotomayor and Jackson.
So, Again, just to go through the decision, the 15th Amendment provides that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
And Section 2 of the 15th Amendment authorizes Congress to enact appropriate legislation to enforce that amendment.
Okay, so the 1965 Voting Rights Act comes about.
And there are a couple of sections that theoretically implicate redistricting and how districts are drawn.
One is Section 5.
So Section 5 originally had rules.
About what was called preclearance.
If you were in a historically discriminatory part of the United States, the Jim Crow part of the United States, you actually had to preclear your maps with the federal government in order to show that you weren't discriminating.
And in 2013, in a case called Shelby County versus Holder, the Supreme Court found hey, look at the calendar.
It's now 2013, it is no longer 1965.
And therefore, many of the qualifications that were being used to say which parts of the United States had to engage in preclearance.
They were no longer appropriate.
And so Section 5 preclearance was no longer forced.
Now, what you will notice is that in the aftermath of Section 5 going away, there were still a lot of black representatives in the United States from the South.
That map that Chuck Schumer was showing earlier of the map of congressional districts in 2024 showed a lot of Democrat political districts in the South.
That was after Section 5 of the VRA was basically ruled to be non applicable.
Okay, so now there is an attempt to invoke Section 2.
Of the Voting Rights Act.
So, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act says no voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard practice or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any state or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of the United States to vote on account of race or color.
So, as you may notice, there's nothing in there about redistricting.
What that's really talking about mostly is things like poll taxes or literacy tests or things that are designed to get black people not to vote.
And again, the Voting Rights Act was necessary because from the end of the Civil War to basically the Civil Rights Revolution of the 60s, There were heavy attempts by various Jim Crow states to stop black people from activating politically.
And that included discriminatory tests designed to stop black people from voting.
That's why the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were passed.
And so that set up some elements of the law in both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act that would seem to be facially violative of the Constitution of the United States.
It's a point Christopher Caldwell has made, convincingly, in my view.
There are elements, for example, of the Civil Rights Act that pretty clearly Discriminate against private business owners, for example, in a way that would be unconstitutional, but the CRA basically overrules that.
And the VRA gets involved in what normally would be state matters in order to enforce the 15th Amendment.
Okay, so how about redistricting?
So there is a case called Gingles from 1986, which set out a four part test to prove vote dilution.
Okay, so vote dilution is the idea that the Voting Rights Act can stop redistricting that dilutes the black vote.
So the example that Elena Kagan uses is let's say that you have a circle shaped black population in terms of its sort of demographic location inside a square sized state.
So, you have the circle and then you have the square.
And inside that black circle, you would have a group of people voting for a particular candidate.
And so, what the state does in order to water down the black vote is they say, We don't want black people to have that much autonomy.
So, we are just going to carve the state into four separate parts and we are going to dilute the black vote so that 25% of each part of that circle goes into a broader square.
Well, according to the Gingles precedent, You have to show that a minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact and politically cohesive, and that that's why it's being divided.
It must also demonstrate the white majority votes sufficiently as a block to defeat the minority's preferred candidate, and that the process, based on the totality of the circumstances, is not equally open to minority voters.
Okay, well, those factors are not actually present in this particular case in Louisiana.
First of all, the district that is being drawn, again, stretches like 150 miles.
It is certainly not geographically compact and politically cohesive.
And if the idea is that just because black voters vote disproportionately Democrat and white voters in Louisiana vote disproportionately Republican, that you must therefore draw districts for Democrats or you're racist, no.
That is just called political districting.
So Justice Alito wrote the opinion of the court.
He says Section 2 of the VRA was designed to enforce the Constitution, not collide with it.
Unfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this court's Section 2 precedents in a way that forces states to engage in the very race based discrimination the Constitution forbids.
He's saying here that sometimes a court will force you to draw a black majority district, which is in fact racist and violative of the Equal Rights Amendment of the Constitution, 15th Amendment.
If the court is forcing you to draw a majority black district, that is in fact racist and that violates the Constitution.
So the court held that Section 2 imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that the state intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.
When a state defends a districting scheme on the ground it was drawn for partisan purposes, plaintiffs have a special burden to overcome.
To prevail, the plaintiff must disentangle race from politics by proving that the former drove a district's lines.
So, in other words, if you draw districts because you want to maintain Mike Johnson's district in Louisiana, that's fine.
And if it turns out that maintaining that district meant a not majority black district, okay, that's normal.
That's how politics works.
And again, one of the things that Alito points out is that the calendar says 2026, not 1966.
Quote, Vast social change has occurred throughout the country and particularly in the South, where many Section 2 suits arise.
At the time of the act's passage, the nation had faced nearly a century of entrenched racial discrimination in voting, an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution.
So things have changed.
Black voters now participate in elections at similar rates as the rest of the electorate, even turning out at higher rates than white voters in two of the five most recent presidential elections nationwide and in Louisiana.
Also, a full blown two party system has emerged in the states where Section 2 suits are the most common.
Gingles arose, the original Supreme Court case you mentioned, in the context of a one party system in which black and white voters had starkly different voting patterns despite their affiliation within the same party.
In the area involved in Gingles, an overwhelming majority of white voters did not vote for any black candidate in the Democratic Party primary elections, which for all practical purposes selected the candidates who would ultimately obtain office.
And in the general, white voters in heavily Democratic areas often ranked black candidates last among Democrats.
Such intra party disparities showed black voters had less opportunity to elect their preferred candidate because of race.
Not because of partisanship.
So he's saying those were intra democratic fights.
Okay, so the majority decision says that basically Section 2 has become obviated by racial progress in the United States.
Justice Thomas, being the most strict constructionist on the bench, says basically Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act should not have applied to districting at all.
He says, as I explained more than 30 years ago, I would go further and hold that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not regulate districting at all.
The relevant text prohibits states from imposing or implying a voting qualification prerequisite to voting or standard practice or procedure in a manner that results in denial or abridgment of the right to vote based on race.
This does not include a state's choice of one districting scheme over another.
Okay, so Elena Kagan, in her dissent, she says, no, no, no, this is racism.
And she says, this part's pretty funny, actually.
She says, in the states where that law continues to matter, the states still marked by residential segregation and racially polarized voting, minority voters can now be cracked out of the electoral process.
Now, I would just like to point out at this point that if you're talking about residential segregation, it turns out that actually, actually, some of the most segregated parts of the United States are in areas that Elena Kagan would leave alone under the VRA.
Here is a map from the left wing Brookings Institute.
Brookings is a liberal institution of the most and least segregated areas in the United States.
Areas of low segregation are predominantly located in the Southwest and in places like Texas and some of the rest of the South.
Some of the places that have the highest levels of segregation are the Northeast and the Rust Belt, which are presumably not the areas that Elena Kagan thinks are racist.
In fact, according to William Fry, demographer at Brookings, the most segregated city in the U.S. is Milwaukee.
The next most segregated, New York, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh.
The most segregated city, by the way, between whites and Hispanics is, wait for it, Los Angeles.
So what's actually happening here is that Democrats, as per their usual arrangement, Are trying to claim that normal politics is racism.
And what they're really upset about, of course, is that more and more people are moving to the South, which means more Southern congressional districts, which means more Republicans.
Here is a map of projected 2030 congressional reapportionment.
This is based on population trajectory.
And what you see is massive gains in the South.
You see Texas picking up another four seats and Florida picking up another three.
You can see North Carolina picking up another two.
The Southwest picks up some.
California loses four.
The areas that are bleeding votes are the Democrat areas.
The places that are gaining votes are the Republican areas.
So, total numbers red states are likely to gain eight to 10 congressional seats by 2030.
That also, by the way, means another 10 electoral votes in the presidential election.
So, what's actually happening here, as per our usual arrangement, is Democrats are claiming that them losing politically is America being racist or the Supreme Court being racist.
And they insist.
That we impose actual racist top down policy in order to protect them politically.
That's what's actually happening here.
Now, what's really amazing here is that President Trump, who again has been widely derided by the left, remember, Trump is trying to do Jim Crow 2.0, according to the Democrats.
Well, it turns out that Trump's approval rating among black Americans is actually at an all time high.
Doesn't mean that he has 40%, but these numbers are pretty astounding.
I think what we're seeing right now in the numbers is President Trump and the Republican Party are chipping away at the long term advantage that Democrats have had with black voters with African Americans.
You can see it right here.
Look, Trump's approval among African Americans at this point in term one.
He was at 12%.
You know, he's been losing ground with a lot of people.
He's gaining.
He's gaining ground with African Americans.
He's up to 16% at this point.
And you say this isn't that big of a shift.
But I will tell you, Republicans absolutely love this shift that's going on because Democrats have had such a long term advantage.
The fact that he's actually gaining ground versus where he was in term number one, this has major implications.
So it turns out Democrats shouting racist, racist over and over and over is not actually winning over additional black voters, it's alienating some black voters.
That is not a shock.
Representative Wesley Hunt of Texas, a Republican, he was asked about the supposedly racist Supreme Court hearing.
He's like, listen, I'm not here because I'm black.
I'm here because I'm good, which, by the way, is how we ought to think as Americans, shouldn't we?
unidentified
There's been a lot of talk how there won't be any black Republican members in the new term.
Because I'm a qualified representative for Congressional District 38, and the American people choose who they want to choose.
And the one thing I don't want to get into is this game of race bait all day, every day.
If there's four, if there's 10, if there's none, we are talking about who is the best person that is best qualified to fill a seat, regardless of the way that they look.
But Democrats, of course, think that if not enough people of a particular melanin level are in Congress, that somehow this is reflective of deep and abiding American racism.
Okay, now, again.
There are many Republicans right now, not a huge number, but some who are off the Trump train for a variety of reasons.
But let me just remind you none of this good stuff would be happening absent President Trump.
None of it.
You would have preferred Kamala Harris?
Is that what you would prefer?
One person who apparently would have is Candace Owens.
All righty, coming up, we'll get to Erica Kirk finally tearing into Candace Owens.
Plus, we'll get to all the latest in the congressional races and, you know, pretty much everything else.
First, here's the thing if you own a business, you probably have no idea how many brokers it actually takes to insure that business.
That is a problem.
You got policies scattered everywhere, applications scattered everywhere.
They keep asking for that same information.
No real picture of how it all fits together when something goes wrong.
And that's a problem for you.
It's going to cost you time.
It's going to cost you money, either on the front end or on the back end.
Our sponsor, SuperShore, is built to blow all that up.
It's one brokerage for your business coverage with a licensed super agent and account team that actually works your account year round, not just at renewal.
Instead of wondering who to call, you have one place, one team, one platform to keep your policies organized in a single insurance vault.
If you've ever stared at a policy and thought, I speak English, this doesn't look like English, SuperShore's fine print fax tool translates the legalese into plain language so you can finally see what you have, what it covers.
And what it does not.
And that's the most important thing.
You need to make sure that you need the coverage, that you have the coverage that you need.
That's what you need to do.
Right now, head on over to supershore.com, get a full report on your current policies, no obligation.
Find out if you're overinsured, underinsured, somewhere in between.
Go to supershore.comslash Shapiro.
One super agency, one powerful platform, all your policies in one place.
Go to supershore.comslash Shapiro.
That's supershore.comslash Shapiro, paid for by Supershore Insurance Agency LLC, a licensed insurance agency.
Also, our sponsor, Balance of Nature's Whole Health System, makes it simple to get a wide variety of whole food ingredients into my diet.
All while maintaining a busy lifestyle.
Balance of Nature supplements are incredibly versatile and easy to work into your daily routine.
The fiber and spice supplement blends smoothly into your favorite drinks.
The fruits and veggies capsules can be swallowed or sprinkled on your favorite dishes.
Each supplement is packed with 47 ingredients from 100% real whole fruits, veggies, spices, fibers, everything from flaxseed to cinnamon, turmeric, mango, pineapple, wild blueberry, spinach, kale, and so much more.
Whenever I'm traveling, I rely on Balance of Nature to keep me healthy.
You should do the same.
Save over 30% when you subscribe on balanceofnature.com.
Join hundreds of thousands of customers in one simple routine that's changing the world.
So, Candace, she has said that she.
Regurts her vote for Trump.
Listen, we all have some regrets in life.
But in today's news surrounding Candace Owens, Erica Kirk has now come out and condemned Candace directly after months of Candace implying, openly stating that Erica was complicit in Charlie's death.
Finally, Erica Kirk came out and said something.
And by the way, I have to say, as somebody who was saying from literally the first moment this sort of crap started circulating, that it's garbage and terrible and horrible and evil what people are doing to Erica.
As somebody who laments the fact that that's somehow a controversial statement in some right wing circles, and that where are her allies?
The fact that she has to come out and defend herself here from this nonsense is indicative of a moral collapse on the part of the pseudo right.
It's disgusting that Erica has to somehow come out and defend herself from bizarre charges that she's involved in a cover up of the murder of her husband.
She's the mother of his kids.
It's disgusting.
Disgusting that she has to do this.
Well, yesterday, in a much noted internet moment, she called out Candace Owens for her disgusting conspiracism.
And this culture we're living in absorbs disagreement as a form of personal betrayal, it turns having an opposing viewpoint.
Into a moral crime worthy of punishment.
And here's what I've realized through all of this truly, having lived through quite literal hell these past seven months, if you strip someone of their humanity long enough, you will arrive at the chilling conclusion that they don't deserve to exist at all.
And then Candace denied everything because she's a coward.
So she put out a tweet Very uncomfortable to watch.
Painful prompt to read, a speech clearly written by someone else, objectively terrible.
So they will now pay for people to tell us otherwise.
Also, of everything I've ever said about Erica, she chooses to respond to something I never said.
They always lie.
I'm not sure there's a bigger liar in American life than Candace Owens.
I mean, truly.
An astonishing liar.
So it turns out that a person named Aubrey Leitch was texting with Candace Owens, and Andrew Colvitt released these texts.
And in the text, she literally accuses Erica Kirk of murder.
So, this person, Aubrey Lage, and Candace were texting each other during the.
You remember part of the saga is when Erica was forced basically to go and sit down with Candace while she was making these crazy accusations.
This is just before the TPUSA event at the end of last year.
And this person wrote, I assume she's coming to you.
This is actually so wild.
And Candace said, and she has apparently been preparing since yesterday evening.
And this Aubrey Lache person said, Been preparing explanations for all the lies they have told, I assume.
If COVID and her have any common sense, they see the online narrative and understand that their support is fading very rapidly.
And Candace said, She is coming here.
And yes, absurd.
They need to prepare.
And then this Aubrey Lage person wrote back, geez, that's actually crazy.
I'm so intrigued to hear how it goes.
I got your back, go Max.
And she wrote back, I'm asking everything.
First question, why did you murder your husband?
So, yes, Candace is a liar.
And here is Candace making a wild series of accusations, ranging from complicity of Erica in the murder to all sorts of other accusations surrounding Erica.
She is truly an awful human being.
And honestly, If you are an audience member of Candace who foments this sort of evil, because she makes money off of you, the way she makes money is by spewing trash into the public sphere, and then she makes money off it through advertising.
That's how she does it.
So if she's monetizing your gullibility, then you are complicit in this nonsense.
By the way, she lies about a lot of stuff, as it turns out.
Most recently, she lied about the fact that her husband was allegedly arrested for a DUI in August 2023.
She said it wasn't true.
It turns out that there was a police report showing that her husband, George, who is a British immigrant who now has dual citizenship, at the time I don't believe he did, that he was found on the side of a highway, more alcohol than human.
Apparently, his Blood alcohol level was 0.261, which is 3.3 times the legal limit somewhere in that neighborhood.
Who's also wandering on the side of the road in possession of a firearm.
She lied about that, too.
She said that never happened.
Apparently, that police report is now widely available.
Also, a member of Charlie's security team, the head of his security, has now filed a defamation lawsuit against Candace for saying that he and Erica conspired to murder Charlie.
According to the lawsuit Candace Owens, a wealthy, influential, and well known conspiracy theorist with a massive social media following, falsely accused. Brian Harpole of conspiring to assassinate Charlie Kirk.
She did so in coordination with Mitchell Snow, who fed Owens a completely and obviously fabricated story that Brian Harpole met with Army intelligence officers and Erica Kirk, Charlie's now widow, at Fort Huachuca to plan the murder.
Unsurprisingly, this lawsuit follows.
There are six counts in the lawsuit, ranging from defamation to false light invasion of privacy to civil conspiracy to the fame to aiding and abetting defamation.
He's demanding a jury trial.
Again, the fact that Erica has been forced to now defend herself, the fact there's a lawsuit about all of this, it doesn't just show that Candace Owens is quite a terrible human being, which clearly she is.
It also shows the absolute unbelievable cowardice of so many people who have been hugging her for the last eight months.
True cowardice.
And if you think that the sort of vile, toxic garbage that she's been spewing into the public sphere has no impact, know that the left has picked it up as well.
Jennifer Welch.
Who again is sort of, I have no idea why this person is in some way popular with the left, but they pick weird models for sure.
Jennifer Welch dressed up like Erica Kirk to tell Erica Kirk that she is a racist fascist because Erica Kirk is pursuing the great crime of defending herself from charges that she murdered her husband or is complicit in a cover up of said murder.
You were the racist fascist about whom I am talking to.
The work that your husband's company and that you were doing to America's youth to make them racist, narrow minded, hateful, and bat crazy is an absolute disgrace.
So, one of the factors that's fascinating about the midterm elections is that apparently, while President Trump's approval is down, Republicans remain somewhat steady with likely midterm voters as well as GOP voters, according to a brand new Harvard Harris poll.
Again, what you see here is that while President Trump is at 42% overall, and again, that is not some sort of kind of gigantic shock.
He's been in the mid 40s for months and months at this point.
This is his lowest point, but it is not wildly lower than he has been previously in this Harvard Harris poll.
It turns out that when it comes to midterm voters and GOP voters, he's basically where he was.
Nothing has really changed all that much.
And part of that is because Democrats are largely disliked.
It's also because Americans actually agree with President Trump about our interests in the Middle East.
So they're upset more about inflation than they are actually about, say, the war in Iran.
48% of Americans say that inflation and affordability is their number one issue.
Foreign affairs is 2%.
2%.
So naturally, if they believe that foreign affairs is impacting inflation, they're not going to like what's going on.
But to pretend that they are somehow on the other side of the war is wrong.
They are not.
According to the same Harvard Harris poll, 74% of Americans believe that it's in America's interest to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
66% of Americans believe it's in America's interest to restrain the global influence of China and Russia.
Meanwhile, in the primaries, JD Vance still has a strong lead among Republicans.
He's clocking in at 48% to 18% for Don Jr., who, of course, is sort of just a proxy for President Trump.
Marco Rubio at 16%, Ron DeSantis, governor of Florida, at 9%.
Tucker Carlson stuck down there at 4%.
Meanwhile, among Democrats, Kamala Harris is up to 50%, Gavin Newsom at 22%.
Pretty astonishing numbers there for the candidate who lost to Donald Trump.
Now, the Democrats have decided that the only way to win is to go more and more radical, which is totally insane.
Jan Favreau, who you'll remember just a couple of weeks ago, I know Jan, he's a likable enough fellow, but I don't know what he thinks he's doing here.
Aside from hanging out with Hassan Piker while Hassan Piker was hugging Hamas, now he is grilling the DNC chair Ken Martin, suggesting that the Democrats have to move further and further and further to the left.
That's the only way to win, apparently.
unidentified
I understand there are lessons.
But those are not the full report.
Why not release the full report?
What's in the report that you wouldn't want to publicize?
Because what ends up happening here is that people, of course, want to weaponize the report in a way to look backwards, to point fingers, place blame in a way that actually doesn't keep us focused on the upcoming election.
But instead, the navel gazing of focusing backwards actually takes us backwards.
Okay, so what is John Favreau's actual recommendation?
That the Democratic Party needs to join up with the Hassan Pikers and also with the Grant Platner.
So you'll remember that Grant Platner is the main Senate Democratic candidate with the Nazi tattoo, like the actual literal Nazi tattoo, who had appeared on Nazi podcasts as well.
Well, now Janet Mills. who had been basically talked into running for the Senate by the Democratic Party in order to take out Susan Collins.
She suspended her campaign for Senate on Thursday.
Graham Platner, who cosplays as a blue collar dude, he is now going to win that primary.
And John Favreau is pleased with this.
Graham Platner isn't just our best and only chance to beat Susan Collins.
He's a good, decent man who struggled and grown and is always trying to do better.
Oh, that's what a Nazi tattoo is.
Struggled and grown is it?
By the way, that Nazi tattoo was on him until literally this race.
He was fine with it.
Until like this precise moment in time.
I hope everyone with reservations takes a little time to get to know the real life version of him, not what the algorithm throws in our faces.
Clearly, that's what so many people in Maine have done from all different walks of life and political persuasions.
I'm just going to point out now that John Favreau in 2002 literally tweeted, Let me know when a far lefty candidate appears with a Nazi sympathizer and we can chat.
I'm letting you know right now, John.
I'm going to let you know right now, actually, like this moment.
Meanwhile, Here was Graham Plattner.
That was in 2022.
You know, here is Graham Plattner saying that the DNC has not contacted, and Jon Stewart being like, no, the DNC must contact you.
You are our future.
You're our future.
Here's the thing the same Democratic Party that thinks that white people are racist, this is one of the reasons they think that Graham Plattner is like the white people talker.
They think that he is the spokesperson for Democrat white people.
Because if white people are kind of Nazis, then maybe if we run some dude with a Nazi tattoo who cosplays a Gene wearing blue collar dude, even though he's kind of wealthy.
Then maybe that'll win over the white people in Maine.
Susan Collins is going to retain this seat.
I'm just, that's my prediction.
Susan Collins will continue to maintain the seat and Graham Platinum will lose.
But the Democratic Party will keep digging down this rabbit hole.
Here is Jon Stewart.
unidentified
Past couple months, though, there has been more reach out from, I would say, more kind of like establishment folks.
However, however, and this is the important part, not from like, The, not from like the DSCC, not from the DNC, like the, like nobody in the places of power remains interested.
But they're lost, dude.
Like they're, I hate it so bad.
They're lost.
And the thing that bothers me the most isn't like, I'm not asking for you to be my friend.
I'm just, but you should be curious because I'm pulling 40 points ahead.
I mean, we know why you're pulling 40 points ahead because primary voters tend to favor the more extreme candidate with the more colorful rhetoric.
That would be the reason.
Meanwhile, mainstream Democrats continue to try and hug Graham Platner with the most, I mean, it's awkward hugging, really awkward.
Senator Chris Van Hollen, truly a dullard from Maryland, he says, That Platner is going to grab the attention of blue collar voters because he wears a sweatshirt, gang.
And if Hassan Piker says you're great, then you're great.
By the way, you want to talk about.
Cartier communists, Mansion Marxists over here.
What a pretentious douchebag Hassan Piker is, truly.
He took a picture of himself reading What is to be Done by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin on a train.
Honestly, like watching him read, it's like those pictures of LeBron James where you go into the locker room and LeBron had read one page of a book.
And people were like, I'm not sure he read that book.
First of all, the fact that he did this guy, this one.
The guy can barely make his way through one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish.
And he's sitting there reading Lenin while he wears Cartier jewelry.
But this is the.
I was asked.
Somebody was asking me yesterday, actually.
We were talking about this, and they said, I don't understand.
How does he get away with that?
You don't understand.
That is the draw of the Hassan Pikers.
The transgressive nature of wearing very expensive, capitalist driven jewelry while reading Lenin is the draw.
It is a nihilistic, hypocritical draw.
That's what it is.
Anything that is destructive of systems and that appears to be sort of campy is what the Democrats are looking for, which is why they're fine with Nazi tattoo guys.
Once again, the only voice of reason in the Democratic Party is Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania.
Here was his comment on Graham Platner Democrats really, really like Platner in Maine, but the Republicans effing love him.
If Maine wants an a hole with a Nazi tattoo on, it's just they got him.
Fetterman, the only rational person in the Democratic Party at this point.
Meanwhile, over in Los Angeles, the mayoral race is heating up.
Spencer Pratt has now cut a pretty viral ad regarding the failures of Los Angeles leadership, contrasting.
The homes of the people implementing crappy policy with, you know, the actual living conditions of a lot of Angelenos.
So, again, contrasting their nice houses in the middle of LA with the trailer where he has to live because his house burned down because of bad fire policy.
So, meanwhile, one of the other LA mayoral candidates is an LA city council member named Nithya Raman.
And she is as far left as it's possible to be, which means that she is welcome to Podsave America, of course.
How radical is she?
Well, she blames stolen catalytic converters, people stealing parts out of cars.
We have a company, you know, the Prius, whatever, Toyota, who makes the Prius, that essentially has a device on their cars, which is super easy to remove.
It's basically the value of a MacBook, right?
That is put in a place that is incredibly easy to access in your car.
And then the thefts related to this issue have essentially all of the costs of that are given to us to bear instead of them having to manufacture a car that actually is not so easy to be stolen.
New York City faces a budget crisis of a historic magnitude.
We inherited a deficit larger than any since the Great Recession.
Years of mismanagement and chronic under budgeting.
Alongside a structural imbalance between what New York City sends to the state and what we receive in return, have taken a toll.
We cannot close this deficit with savings alone.
We need new revenue, and we need a structural reset in our relationship with the state.
That is the only way to meet our legal obligation to pass a balanced budget, and to do so without imposing a financial burden onto the backs of working people.
I'm glad to partner with Speaker Menon as we call upon Albany and deliver a balanced budget.
Together, We are extending the executive budget deadline from this coming Friday until May 12th because a crisis at this scale cannot be solved without state action.
So I want to bring back something we haven't done in a while things I like and things I hate.
Yeah, because, you know, it's a Friday.
So let's enjoy.
So my father sent me a recording last night that I wanted to share with you.
It is amazing.
I had never heard of this pianist before.
He is astonishing.
This is probably the most astonishing performance of any.
Piano piece I've ever seen in my life.
The pianist's name is Mark David Hamlin.
He's Canadian American.
He teaches up in the Northeast.
It just demonstrates, by the way, that there are so many areas of life where people who are legitimately like the best in the world and maybe in human history at their craft, they're just not world famous.
It's kind of amazing.
Like I'd never heard of him.
My father, who's a professional pianist, had never heard of him.
He's unbelievable.
Here is an excerpt of him playing The Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 by Franz Liszt, which you will recognize from all the Bugs Bunny cartoons.
He's an unbelievable dynamic touch, by the way.
But wait until the cadenza he plays here.
So, cadenza is a part of a classical piece that's basically written by somebody who's not the original composer to demonstrate the skill level of the player.
Here's some of that.
The speed with which he's playing some of these octaves is just ridiculous.
So there's a story that went totally viral on the internet over the course of the last 48 hours.
It was about a very good looking woman at JP Morgan who supposedly was sexually harassing a younger man.
Okay, now these sorts of stories go viral all the time online where there's a good looking woman who is having sex with a 17 year old student and then everybody's like, ah, ha, Okay, in this particular case, the idea was that there was a former JP Morgan staffer.
Who had been sexually harassed by a higher up at JP Morgan who's a very pretty woman.
And this thing went viral because the Daily Mail reported it.
So, first of all, I hope she sues the living hell out of the Daily Mail, and I hope she sues the living hell out of this former JP Morgan staffer because now it turns out it was a lie, which is gross, truly disgusting.
According to the New York Post, a former JP Morgan staffer, whom sources identified as Chirayurana, has been accused of making fabricated sexual harassment claims against a high ranking executive at the bank after an internal investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing.
Multiple sources told the Post that 35 year old Rana, now a principal at investment firm Briegel Sagemount, is the man who brought a bombshell lawsuit against Lorna Hajdini earlier this week.
Rana's suit, filed on Monday under the pseudonym Jondo, accused the 37 year old executive director of turning him into her sex slave by drugging him with Rohypnol and Viagra and threatening to slash his bonus if he did not comply.
The British tabloid quoted the now deleted court papers and reported that Hajdini, the executive director at JP Morgan's leveraged finance team, even turned up unannounced at Rana's apartment and forced him to have sex.