As Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats pressure Vice President Pence to oust President Trump from office just days before the end of his term by invoking the 25th Amendment, they also prepare impeachment documents. Meanwhile Charlie recounts the timeline and the geography of what actually happened on January 6th. Do the facts bear out that President Trump actually incited a mob? Or do the facts vindicate him? What do legal scholars have to say?Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Hey everybody, welcome to this episode of the Charlie Kirk Show, The Great Conflation, how the media is conflating peaceful Trump supporters with people that did things that, quite honestly, we have denounced and that no one supports.
Email us your questions, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Support our program at charliekirk.com slash support.
This episode is brought to you by ExpressVPN.
Fight big tech and big brother at expressvpn.com slash Charlie.
The great conflation is here.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country.
He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
With the Turning Point USA movement, I have the honor of traveling to college campuses and engage in rigorous debate with the next generation.
When you talk to as many students as I do, there are several familiar themes.
I see disillusionment with the media, a lack of hope in their job prospects, and I hear them claim that they're victims and deserve better.
Whether college students realize it or not, they are forming ideologies that will affect the way they think and treat others for a lifetime.
I like to recommend a great book to any young person in this time of life.
It's called Reflections on the Existence of God by the best-selling author Richard Simmons III.
This guy doesn't shy away from the hard questions of life.
Reflections on the existence of God is a collection of short essays that tackle the biggest questions of all.
Does God exist?
This book is well researched and easy to read.
One of the most important things a young person can do is solidify their worldview.
Our worldview informs our personal, social, and political lives.
It helps us understand our purpose.
So I'm challenging college students to ask themselves life's toughest questions.
Dive in.
It's a great book.
You've got to check it out.
Reflections on the existence of God.
Go to reflectionscharlie.com, reflectionscharlie.com, and then email me, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Your thoughts on the book, reflectionscharlie.com.
Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here with Isabel Brown from Turning Point USA.
Not that there's a lot happening in our country right now, but we'll try to make the most of the slow news cycle right now.
Pelosi, to move forward with impeachment, if Pence doesn't act, Politico from Meredith McGraw and Daniel Lippman.
Democrats will immediately move to force the president from office for his role in inciting violent riots at the Capitol.
Now, this is the politico piece.
This implies that President Trump did incite violent riots at the Capitol.
That is hotly debated.
In fact, the Wall Street Journal has come out with a piece that is very good that said, no, the president did not do such a thing.
We'll get to that in a second.
But Pelosi has made it very clear in a letter to her members that if Pence refuses to act, Democrats will immediately move to force Trump from office for his role in, quote, inciting violent riots at the Capitol on Wednesday.
They repeat it three times in just the first couple paragraphs here.
And so what we've seen here is now that House Democrats have given an ultimatum of sorts.
They have said that if Vice President Pence does not enact the 25th Amendment, which the Vice President can enact with the agreement of cabinet officials to remove the President of the United States, then she will have an impeachment vote on the House floor.
This would not be the first impeachment fight, as many of you know.
The first impeachment fight was nine, about a year ago, when Adam Schiff and the crew decided to impeach President Donald Trump over a simple phone call.
And so a lot of this is around the inciting of violence.
Now, what does that exactly mean to incite violence?
That is something that is really open for interpretation.
I want to get into the incitement timeline.
But first, I want to get, because there's a lot wrong with how the Democrats have been portraying this.
But first, I want to read from this great piece in the Wall Street Journal from Jeffrey Scott Shapiro.
No, Trump isn't guilty of incitement.
House Democrats have drafted an article of impeachment that accuses President Trump of, quote, incitement to insurrection.
Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin said Thursday that his office is, quote, looking at all actors here and anyone that had a role in the Capitol riot.
Some reporters have constructed that as including Mr. Trump.
But it continues by saying the president didn't commit incitement or any other crime.
I should know.
As the Washington prosecutor, I earned the nickname, quote, protester prosecutor, from the anti-war group Code Pink.
In one trial, I convicted 31 protesters who disrupted congressional traffic by obstructing the Capitol Crypt.
In another, I convicted a Code Pink activist who smeared her hands with fake blood, charged at the then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a House hearing room and incited the audience to seize the Secretary of State physically.
In other cases, I dropped charges when the facts fell short of the legal standard of incitement.
This is what it says.
Hostile journalists and lawmakers have suggested Mr. Trump incited the riot when he told a rally that Republicans need to, quote, fight much harder.
Mr. Trump suggested the crowd walk to the Capitol, quote, we're going to cheer on brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back your country's weakness.
You have to show strength.
You have to be strong.
Now, Josh Shapiro continues by saying, in D.C., it's a crime to, quote, intentionally or recklessly act in such a manner to cause another person to be in reasonable fear, or, quote, to incite or provoke violence when there in a likelihood that such violence will ensure.
But here is where it continues.
The president didn't mention violence on Wednesday, much less provoke or incite it.
This is from Jeff Shapiro, who is the former prosecutor, U.S. attorney for D.C.
And then it goes on to say, the president's critics want him charged for inflaming the emotions of angry Americans.
That alone does not satisfy the elements of any criminal offense.
Therefore, his speech is protected by the Constitution that members are sworn to support and defend.
Isabel, what do you make of all this?
You know, I find it interesting Congress is spending the day and potentially the next few weeks focused solely on this issue of impeaching President Trump when they could be working on a million other things to actually benefit the lives of the American people.
We're still in the midst of an ongoing pandemic that's negatively affecting millions of people in this country who are out of work, who've been forced to close their businesses, who can't go back to school.
And I find it interesting that instead of catering to those needs and providing for the American people through, I don't know, a better stimulus package or allowing people to reopen their businesses from the federal level, instead we're sitting around debating whether or not the president of the United States is directly responsible for insurrection, which we clearly know he's not.
So let's go to cut 16, where the president says clearly he wants people to march peacefully and patriotically.
Play tape.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
There you go.
Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
And so the fallout from this has not stopped.
The fallout is impeachment.
And also, as of this broadcast, President Donald Trump is no longer on Twitter, Snapchat, Parlor doesn't exist.
Right.
Spotify.
What else did they delete the president for?
Instagram, Facebook.
I believe they banned him from TikTok.
Not that that necessarily applies.
An active TikTok user.
But yeah, we've seen a very coordinated effort from across the industry and social media and just social networking sites with podcasts and music and movies to ban the president of the United States from engaging in those platforms.
Let's go to cut 10 of Pelosi saying the president is guilty of inciting an insurrection.
He has to pay for that.
Play cuts on.
Well, I let the 25th Amendment because it gets rid of him.
He's out of office.
But there is strong support in the Congress for impeaching the president a second time.
This president is guilty of inciting insurrection.
He has to pay a price for that.
And so do you remember over the summer when BLM activists almost stormed the White House?
Do you remember this?
I do.
So when the BLM activists attacked the White House, which resulted in, can you look up how many Secret Service people were hurt?
I want to say dozens.
Dozens of Secret Service members hurt.
Was that not an attack on our democratic institutions?
Was that not an attack on the fabric of our country?
When the BLM activists were reprehensibly attacking the White House, just as the people last week were reprehensibly attacking the Capitol, was that not an attack on our institutions?
The protests in what was called Black Lives Matter Plaza resulted in the Secret Service becoming so uncertain at the chain of events that the President of the United States was forced to go to the bunker, the nuclear bunker, just because they were not sure whether or not there was going to be a storming of the White House gates.
Thankfully, there wasn't.
Thankfully, the Secret Service did their job.
And remember what happened after that?
The Attorney General of the United States, Bill Barr, cleared out the plaza with tear gas, and the Attorney General was attacked for doing such tactics, for clearing out people that were trying to storm the gates of the White House.
Now, Isabel, you've been in the White House many times.
With that many people, they could have been successful.
Absolutely.
They absolutely could have been.
Let's not forget that during President Obama's second term, an individual actually was successful in climbing over the fence to the White House and made it in the front door, which was a very clear security threat to the residents of the president and the vice president working there, obviously, the first lady living there, and clearly had nefarious intentions in mind.
And yet, at the same time, we look at an incident like that and what happened last Wednesday, and you can't even compare them in today's media climate.
Yeah, and so there were attempts to try to breach the White House walls.
This was never described by the activist media or by anyone in leadership as insurrection.
It was never treated as insurrection by any law enforcement officials.
More than 60 Secret Service officers were hurt when this attempted attack came on the White House.
And so we denounced that and we denounce the capital violence.
Why is that the left believes that certain forms of violence are acceptable and okay and others are not?
Well, that is simply because they believe that in the power struggle that they see America, they believe that the rioters for BLM Incorporated are they have a license to do such destruction.
And yet when they see anyone that is not of their political persuasion doing that, and not even of my political, if you resort to political violence, you are not of my political persuasion.
Then all of a sudden, they start to say that it's an insurrection.
Making sure big government and big brother not spying on you is very important.
With some leadership changes that seem to be coming very, very soon, your data is not safe at all.
But when you anonymize your connection, you could surf the internet freely without wondering who will get a hold of your search history or viewing habits or what they will do with that information.
Do you want the government to be reading over your shoulder every time you go online?
No way.
There has never been a more important time to protect your internet activity.
And that's why I urge you to get Express VPN, the VPN that I trust that I have on my phone that works very well.
ExpressVPN is really easy to use.
When you search for something online, it all gets tracked by big tech companies.
They match your activity to your true identity using your device's unique IP address.
When I use ExpressVPN, these companies can't see my IP address at all.
My identity is anonymized by a secure VPN server, and my data is encrypted for maximum protection.
And besides hiding my internet activity, what I liked most about ExpressVPN is how easy it is to use.
Just download the app on your phone or computer, tap one button, and you're protected.
So stop handing over all of your data to big tech companies and the government.
Defend your rights with the VPN that I trust.
That there really is only one choice, and it's expressvpn.com/slash charlie.
That's e-x-p-r-e-s-s-v-p-n.com/slash charlie to get three free months free.
That's right.
Go to expressvpn.com right now to learn more.
Isabel, I was about to go make a post on Parlor, and it turns out I can't do that.
Yeah, good luck posting on Parlor.
What actually happens if you try to go to Parlor right now?
It just says that basically the website doesn't exist, interestingly, because the server that hosted the domain for parlor.com is owned by Amazon.
And yesterday they decided to completely shut down access to the website after the Google App Store and the Apple App Store decided to do the same thing.
So these are three trillion-dollar companies, Apple, Google, and of course Amazon, or near trillion-dollar companies that have colluded to try and eliminate and destroy a free speech competitor to Twitter.
This is the closest thing I think we've seen in our lifetime to the burning of books.
It looks exactly like that.
And honestly, it resembles fascism in very scary ways that I never expected to see, especially in a free country like the United States of America.
No, that's exactly right.
And so basically, people have told us for quite some time: go create a competitor, go create an alternative to Twitter.
And some of us are like, well, we want access to the biggest platform, but we didn't discourage Parler.
I have a Parlor account.
I was one of the first users on Parlor.
And what ended up happening, now what's ended up happening is that because of what happened last week and the misrepresentation and what happened last week, which is what we're going to do in the next segment, we're going to break down piece by piece this intentional mob inflation conflation by the activist media to try to conflate every single human being that was wearing a MAGA hat in the Washington DC zip code as if they were involved in assaulting a police officer, which is not true.
And I'm going to go through the geography of it.
I'm going to go through the timeline of it because this is critically important.
But if you look at now, the fallout from this controversy has now resulted in millions of people unable to receive information.
Let's go to cut eight.
Devin Nunez calls for a RICO investigation into big tech for what has happened to Parlor.
Playtape.
So I don't know where the hell the Department of Justice is at right now or the FBI.
This is clearly a violation of antitrust, civil rights, the RICO statute.
There should be a racketeering investigation on all the people that coordinated this attack on not only a company, but on all of those like us, like me, like you, Maria.
And so, Isabel, what's the excuse they're giving for doing this?
They're saying that the speech policies they have are lightly moderated.
What's their justification?
From what I can tell, the justification, at least from Apple's side of things, on why they took it off the app store was that speech wasn't monitored heavily enough on the Parlor app.
They're saying that there were numerous instances where people directly incited violence on the app and that was reported but not taken care of.
I've experienced the opposite on the Parlor app, like you.
I have an account there, and if there is a very clear violation of their terms of service, those posts get taken down almost immediately.
They're very good at handling that.
So it sounds to me that that's sort of an excuse for covering up speech that they just don't like.
Yeah, and so here's something that we've been talking about on this program for quite some time, which is if the government were to shut down Parlor, you would be able to sue almost instantaneously and win.
If the government shut down Parlor, it would be illegal and you would get Parlor back.
But now you have massive multi-trillion dollar companies that are acting as if they are the government, that they are coming in as the centralized command structure to do what the government maybe wish they could do.
But this is part of the scary and dangerous reality of the new kind of corporatist environment that we're living in in our country, where these massive multi-trillion dollar companies headquartered in Menlo Park and Seattle have more institutional power than the NSA, than the Department of Justice.
Even if Congress passed a law to say that we don't like Parler and we don't want it to exist, it would get, unless you change the First Amendment, which would not exactly be popular, and it would take two-thirds of states to change the First Amendment, it would fall flat on its face.
But now the Democrats and the left realize that they are able to destroy and they are able to punish and bully and quite honestly make certain platforms disappear without an act of Congress, without government actually getting involved.
And for those of you that are saying, well, we just have to let the market play itself out.
Look, I'm a free market guy.
Nothing about this is free market.
When you have an incumbent institutional advantage, like Facebook does, like Google does, like Amazon does, and Apple does, on a weekend, you say that your speech policies are too lightly moderated.
Look, what I found to be so interesting, and I was on Steve Hilton's show last night talking about this, is that Apple came out and they said, well, you have to go change your speech policies.
Hold on.
Parlor is a startup company.
You guys are a multi-trillion dollar company.
Parlor is still trying to figure out their user interface.
And God bless them, but they still got a lot of work to do on their user interface, right?
And all of a sudden you're like, no, you have to go hire 100 people to go moderate speech.
It is so immoral and all today.
This segment is going to be one of the most important segments that I think I have done in recent memory.
The media is on a diabolical, pathological campaign to conflate two independent events into one, make everyone guilt by association, deplatform, investigate, bully, target, cancel, and destroy at all costs.
What happened last week is a lot more nuanced than how the media is covering it.
What happened is around 7 a.m., There was the beginning of the allowance for people to go participate in a constitutionally permitted rally with the President of the United States at the ellipse right near the White House.
Turning Point Action, our political vehicle, participated as a sponsor of this event.
We sent students to this event.
This is a constitutionally permitted event on voter integrity, on supporting the President of the United States for all that he's done for our country.
This event was the only event that many people came to visit.
This event is the only event that we at Turning Point Action promoted.
It is the only event that we plan to have our students attend.
About a 31-minute walk away, two miles, Isabel?
About two and a half, yep.
Two and a half miles away is the United States Capitol building.
Now, at the United States Capitol building, there were other non-sanctioned activities that happened and occurred.
Now, mind you, at the ellipse, there were hundreds of thousands of people that attended.
Hundreds of thousands.
Then at the Capitol building, there was about 10 or 15,000.
So hold on.
Let's just start with just pure numbers.
And let's just pretend everyone at the Capitol building did something wrong, which is also not a correct nuance as well.
We'll get to that in a second.
But there were hundreds of thousands of people that did not get within one mile of the United States Capitol building last Wednesday.
They came to Washington, D.C., many of whom, on their own dime, came and supported the President of the United States.
These people were peaceful.
There has not been, to this moment of this broadcast, a single accusation of anything wrong that happened at the ellipse.
Nothing.
The ellipse was a normal event.
We've already gone into the incitement nonsense of that.
However, the ellipse was its own independent event.
The president called for people to peacefully go to the Capitol.
Guess what?
Hundreds of thousands of people didn't, including our students at Turning Point Action.
Our staff and our students, our staff deserves a tremendous amount of credit.
They said, you know what?
We're getting back on the buses and we're going home.
And they did, and we did.
However, the media is not happy or satisfied with that.
You see, they're trying to create this overarching, massive, reckless, sloppy, and dare I say, evil indictment that every single human being that was in the zip code of Washington, D.C., that supports President Trump, they're all terrorists.
That is so beyond reckless, it must be stopped and confronted directly.
Now, there are some people that came here that went to Washington, D.C. for the sole purpose of trying to go make shenanigans and cause trouble at the Capitol.
In fact, they didn't even stay for the entire president's speech.
Some people started to leave a little bit early.
This was not the hundreds of thousands of people that were there.
Now, don't take my word for it.
Look at this short clip from Vice News where they show that some people started to leave the Capitol early, started to leave the President's remarks early and go to the Capitol.
So before I play this tape, how could the President be responsible for incitement when the people at the front of the Capitol shenanigans weren't even there to hear what the president had to say?
Play tape.
Before Trump's speech was even finished, many were already making their way to the capital.
Pause it.
Pause it.
So I want to just pause it here, and we're going to play this again.
You see what happened right there with the barricades?
This is reckless journalism on behalf of Vice News.
It's good journalism, then reckless.
Right, people started to leave, and then all of a sudden they show the barricades.
The way that this event has been portrayed is as if the president spoke at the east end of the National Gallery of Art and pointed at the Capitol and told everyone to go.
When in reality, some groups, like ours at Turning Point Action, wanted nothing to do with the Capitol.
And there were many other groups that were alongside us.
We said, we're not going to get near the Capitol.
We're here to support the president independently.
And how far is that, Isabel?
So the walk from, depending on where you start at the ellipse all the way up to Capitol Hill, where people were demonstrating, is a little over two miles.
To suggest that people two miles apart are somehow all connected in some plot of insurrection to violently overthrow the government is beyond the paleocrat.
So it's evil.
That's exactly like saying.
I don't use that word evil.
It is.
I mean, it is, though, evil.
It's exactly like saying people at the Empire State Building and people at the One World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan are all connected in some plot to do something nefarious.
And so that's exactly right.
And so you have a two-mile distance, and Vice even admitted, I'm going to play the entire Vice clip in a second, but I wanted to stop it because all of a sudden, Vice did a little bit of a trick.
So they said people started to leave, and then all of a sudden they show these barricades.
So the impression that you get is as if the barricades are just right down the street.
I mean, that's a hike.
I mean, that's a long walk.
And I'm not doubting that some people went to the president's speech and then went to the Capitol.
Look at that picture of the crowd.
Okay, nowhere near that many people went to the U.S. Capitol building.
A lot of people were up very early, including Pastor Rick Brown, who is on our live stream, and said, I don't want to deal with this.
I'm not getting near it.
In fact, Pastor Rick Brown, who was on our live stream, walked through the National Mall and started to hear big shouts.
And he just kind of was like, I'm not going to the Capitol.
I'm walking away.
Are you going to indict Pastor Rick Brown into all of this?
A man who traveled across the country to go support his president and voter integrity and made the good decision not to go?
Of course not.
Instead, the activist media is just focusing on, they want to create this incredibly sloppy, reckless narrative that it's all looped in together.
So now let's get into this even further, okay?
And so I want to play this entire Vice clip.
This clip, in my opinion, has some very good footage in it right up front of what started to happen.
And so, however, you're talking about a couple dozen people that should be arrested, whether they were agitators, whether they were Antifa, whether they were far-right, you know, National Socialist worker supporters, okay?
I have no tolerance.
I've talked about this before.
I have no tolerance for political violence, okay?
And so, but you look at the enormity of the people that were in Washington, D.C., and you all of a sudden label all of them as this.
That is so dangerous.
Okay, let's play the entire tape.
And listen carefully.
The Vice reporter says himself that some people started to leave early.
Some people were not there for the president.
Some people were there looking for trouble.
Play tape.
Before Trump's speech was even finished, many were already making their way to the capital.
And as more protesters arrived, the mood darkened.
And so we play the rest of the clips here, but all of a sudden you kind of see, I just want you to understand the cut of the clip.
This is two miles away, okay?
So this journalist goes from the National Mall to the Capitol.
Now, interestingly, this journalist was ahead of the curve.
You know, maybe he had a sneaking suspicion that something was going to happen there.
But this is the really important part point here, which is that there is understandable outrage out there for people to be held accountable.
However, the rush to not just judgment, but the rush to try and punish people is against the Western tradition of how we do law in this country.
And so the peaceful assembly with President Donald Trump right on the ellipse, most of those people went home afterwards.
Now, let's go to the even bigger point of nuance.
All the people that then went to the Capitol, okay?
Now, we sent our students home on our buses and they left.
However, some people went to the United States Capitol and just decided to kind of sit there and watch and look and wave flags.
Perfectly permissible with First Amendment rights.
Now, a lesson that my parents taught me early on is as soon as you see trouble, go the other way.
I do not think it was good judgment for people that started to see things happen and they're all this and they rush to the...
Now, that's just, here's a good rule of life.
You start to see trouble, just go the other way, okay?
Unless you feel as if your independent action can save an innocent person, okay?
That's one nuance I'll say.
If you see someone getting beaten up in a subway or something, then you could do something.
But all of a sudden, if you start to see mass trouble, just go the other way.
As, you know, very wise people say nothing good happens after 2 a.m., right?
Or happens after midnight.
And nothing really good happens as soon as tear gas starts getting spread on the U.S. Capitol, right?
And so is that a crime?
No, it's not.
Is it bad judgment?
Yeah, it's bad judgment.
Okay.
It's bad judgment all of a sudden to climb the Capitol steps and walk in the rotunda.
And it's just, it's not wise.
Okay?
However, not wise does not mean you're an insurrectionist, okay?
Let me be very clear.
Just because you do something stupid does not mean you're Timothy McVay.
Just because you do something that is regrettable does not mean that you're planning an armed insurrection against the United States government.
Now, the guy that had the zip ties, I hope he goes to jail.
That's just weird, creepy, wrong, evil, okay?
The guys that were assaulting police officers, jail.
But the guys that were just kind of there waving flags and they're walking up the steps, and I'm sure that they regret it.
I'm sure that a lot of them have said that.
In fact, in a lot of these arrests, a lot of these people say this was the worst decision of my entire life.
That doesn't exactly talk like a domestic terrorist trying to overthrow the government, okay?
That talks like someone that got excited in the heat of the moment that did something dumb.
Now, they should be held accountable.
However, let's say that, Isabel, there were probably 15 or 20,000 people at the Capitol, right?
Yeah.
More or less.
So all of a sudden, we went from hundreds of thousands to 15 or 20,000.
So we're dealing with an independent 10% body of who is there in Washington, D.C.
The media makes it seem as if every person raised their right hand and said, I will storm the Capitol today, never giving the credit, the nuance, or the factual context to say, you know what, I actually don't want to go do that.
You know what?
I'm here to support my president.
I'm going to go home.
Now, not everyone at the Capitol acted in the same fashion.
So this is a picture of the peaceful event that no one has any trouble with except what the president said.
We've already been through that.
I don't even want to focus on that.
Okay, because incitement is just such a loose term of in the legal world, most of it's protected under free speech, and everyone is basically and almost always responsible for their own actions, okay?
You can't say, well, he meant this, that's not going to stand up in a court of law, okay?
And so, but you look at this picture, I'm sorry, one more time, and that's right near the Washington Monument.
That's the most important part of the picture, believe it or not.
The crowd's important.
The Washington Monument is two miles from the United States Capitol.
Thank you guys.
You look at a picture.
Can we get a picture of all the people on the Capitol?
At the very most, estimates range of 10,000 people that were in the Capitol area and 2,000 people that were on the Capitol.
Okay, so you go from a rally that has 250 to 300,000 people to 15,000 people surrounding the Capitol to 2,000 people that stormed the Capitol.
So all of a sudden, whoa, you have everyone that goes to the Trump rally, then all of a sudden people maybe started to walk over and like, something doesn't feel right about this.
Do they get any credit from the media?
Do they get any credit from anyone that maybe there was hundreds of thousands of people that were like, I don't know if I want to go to the Capitol?
Okay, you can make a bad decision.
That doesn't mean you broke the law.
Okay.
So there were people that were right on the verge of the U.S. Capitol, right near the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial.
For those of you that know the Capitol, you know exactly what I'm talking about.
There's Union Square, and then there's East Seton Park.
It's like the Washington Mall feeds right into it.
It's gorgeous if you've ever seen it.
And there's the U.S. Botanical Garden on the south.
You've been there before, right, Isabel?
Many, many times.
And so you went to school in Georgetown.
I did.
I went to Georgetown University last year.
And so if you know the architecture, yeah, let's show that picture on the live stream, please, Connor.
So look, that is not 200,000 people.
Now, I'm willing to say that's not everyone that was there.
That's not an exhaustive picture.
But that's just the people in the Capitol steps.
That's not everyone who went into the Capitol Rotunda.
Now, in the Capitol Rotunda, there's an estimate of about 300 to 400 people that went into there.
Again, if I have to say this again, I'm going to get exhausted, but I'm going to say it again.
I don't justify, I think I've made my position very clear on exactly what happened here.
However, all of a sudden, this group indictment of all of this is so reckless and so wrong.
So now you have here, what is that?
How many of you did you say?
Isabel?
I would say at max, a few thousand people right there on the steps.
I mean, obviously, the picture is only so wide, and the Capitol building is huge if you've never been to Washington, D.C., but that can't be more than a few thousand people.
A few thousand people.
And so, and then on top of that, a couple hundred go into the building, okay?
And so a lot of people, such as our organization, Turning Point Action, we were there simply for the president's speech.
Other people were there for something at the Capitol.
There was supposed to be an event where some members of Congress spoke at the Capitol, which is perfectly constitutionally permitted, by the way.
We just weren't there for that.
And we thought, you know what, let's just stay focused on the president.
That was our position.
And we got our students transported out as soon as the president was done.
However, let's look at the timeline.
45-minute speech?
About 20 minutes.
The 45-minute walk.
I'm sorry.
48-minute walk, depending on where you start in the ellipse to where you end up at that point.
Getting out of a president's event.
With a few hundred thousand people.
Slow moving exercise, right?
Slow moving.
So what time did the nonsense start at the Capitol Hill?
I think 1.53.
Is that right, Connor?
More or less.
So the president ends at 1.15.
You have a 45-minute walk.
You're talking at most a couple dozen people that would have sprinted, sprinted like a United States Olympic triathlete, two miles, 40 degrees outside, Running to the Capitol.
And then you have to make the accusation that they were the ones that were breaking the windows.
Vice admits that there were some people that were already at the Capitol before the president even started speaking.
There were some people that were there for the Capitol.
So, really, what that goes to show is how many people actually went from the ellipse to the Capitol.
I'm sure that there were, I'm sure there were some.
I'm sure there was.
But all of a sudden, there's no nuance in the way that the media has covered this.
And here's what I'm trying to say.
Here's how I'm going to complete the point.
Two events, two.
One that should be celebrated for a wonderful expression of free speech.
Another that has been repudiated by me, by Isabel, and every decent person out there.
And then there's a third nuance to that, which we've talked about.
We'll build out in the next hour, which is not even everyone at that Capitol participated in that.
Got it.
So this is a bill that has been introduced asking Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment.
This is happening in real-time play tape.
House Resolution 21, resolution calling on Vice President Michael R. Pence to convene and mobilize the principal officers of the executive departments of the cabinet to activate Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to declare President Donald J. Trump incapable of executing the duties of his office and to immediately exercise powers as acting president.
For what purpose does the gentleman from West Virginia rise?
I object.
Objection is heard.
Objection is heard.
So an objection means that now it has to go to an entire House vote.
Right.
Patricia has emailed us, freedom at charliekirk.com, and Patricia has made my point.
Patricia, who seems like a very peaceful American patriot, said this.
I was there January the 6th.
We walked from the ellipse to the Capitol.
The crowd was amazingly peaceful, friendly, generally patriot supporting Trump.
Left the Capitol right before 2 p.m. and just before the altercation.
We were almost back to the ellipse when we heard the sirens and police headed to the Capitol.
We are talking about a very small group of people to the tens of thousands who were there at the Capitol.
The president or any of the speakers did not incite violence.
That's straight from the front lines.
And so let's get back to the nuance that is so sorely missing.
Representative Crowe, who is a Democrat from Colorado, you know him.
I sure do.
Said that, quote, we are witnessing the birth of a domestic terrorist movement.
No, we're not.
This is a lie.
And we have to, we have to, this is such an important thing, everybody.
I'm telling you right now, we got to get the truth out, or else they're going to use this as an excuse to pass wide-sweeping legislation that will spy on you, that will monitor you.
And this is what Glenn Greenwald warred about on Tucker Carlson last week.
Let's see if we can get some tape from that.
Our team's getting some other eclipse right now.
But it's so important that we clarify this.
I have denounced what happened last week.
I have to say this every segment, or else people have amnesia.
However, to say that this is the birth of a domestic terrorist movement is nonsensical.
Okay.
Hundreds of thousands of people at the ellipse.
They march to the Capitol.
Some do.
And Isabel, can you help build that out?
Yeah, so we saw a very small percentage of the total number of people that were there at the ellipse to hear from President Trump march to the Capitol building.
Estimates of the number of people that were in the region of the U.S. Capitol building were about a few tens of thousands, maximum about 20,000 people.
And then the number of people that actually stood on the steps, maybe a few thousand, with a few hundred of those individuals actually entering the United States Capitol building.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people are still scattered throughout Washington, D.C., most of whom are about two and a half miles away at the Ellipse, which is a park run by the National Park Service right in front of the White House to hear from President Trump.
To suggest that President Trump, who told people if they were going to Capitol Hill to peacefully and patriotically show their support for this president and for our country, not once using any sort of violence inciting language in that speech, and the 300,000 people in attendance to hear this individual speak, our president of the United States, are somehow directly responsible for what's happening two and a half miles away at roughly the same time as the speech was concluding, to me is intellectual sloth.
It's painting this blanket picture of anyone in Washington, D.C. with a red hat.
And beyond that, as now we're seeing with some of this big tech suppression of what was happening last week, anyone who's ever worn a red MAGA hat in this country or tweeted anything in support of our president as being directly responsible for what happened on the steps of the Capitol.
Let's go to cut 17.
Are we loading that right now?
The president said, those who engaged in violence, these people do not represent our country.
Let's play tape.
The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy.
To those who engaged in the acts of violence and destruction, you do not represent our country.
And to those who broke the law, you will pay.
We have just been through an intense election and emotions are high.
But now tempers must be cooled.
And now tempers must be cooled.
The president is right on that.
However, I will say that calling half the country domestic terrorists is not a good way to get the tempers cooled.
So you have hundreds of thousands of people at the ellipse.
Tens of thousands walk to the Capitol.
And again, once the shenanigans started and the nonsense started at 2 p.m., I know a lot of people left.
The people that started to run in, again, that's not necessarily against the law.
Probably not good judgment, right?
And so what we do know, though, is that a lot of people have been calling for massive investigations into this and almost the increase of the surveillance state.
Let's go here to cut 14.
Joe Scarborough.
You know, Ed Luce, you know your history much better than I do, but during the rise of Hitler, you had - yeah, by the way, we can draw the analogies.
As far as we can talk about this being 1933, we can do that.
Talk about being 1933.
I don't know.
How about let's talk about this being 1984?
Because that's much more resemblant to the state of affairs that we're living in right now in the United States of America.
This narrative is so important, though, because to me, it resembles the same pattern of behavior we've seen from congressional Democrats in the media since the day this president took office.
It's always been the extreme hyperbole of somehow this authoritarian president, which by the way doesn't align whatsoever with President Trump's agenda in office or the conservative movement, trying to make sure that we're all falling into line in lockstep with whatever this president wants to do.
That's so far beyond the pale.
It doesn't resemble at all any of the things that this president has done in the last four years and just follows this same pattern of accusatory behavior from the left saying, oh, you colluded with Russia, proven wrong.
You're having an illegal phone call with Ukraine, proven wrong.
You're stealing mailboxes, proven wrong.
Now you're causing insurrection at the United States Capitol.
Obviously, we know that not to be true, but I don't expect anything different from the left when it comes to that accusation.
That's right.
And this is not a small thing for us to push back against, because again, this is going to be used as massive justification to really increase the security state and to try to restrict speech in our country.
And so this is something that I think, you know, we are kind of like not fighting back against enough this, right?
Against this.
Absolutely.
And really this kind of narrative that's there.
Okay, let's go to a little bit of a flashback.
Let's go to cut six.
And let's not forget, if anyone is judging this, I'm not judging this.
I'm just wondering what is going on because we were supposed to figure out this experiment a long time ago.
Our country was started because this is how the Boston Tea Party rioting.
So don't do not get it twisted and think that, oh, this is something that has never happened before.
And then this is so terrible.
And where are we?
And these savages and all of that.
This is how this country was started.
Oh, okay.
So this is how our country was started.
So now Don Laman, as Tucker Carlson calls him, he calls him Don Laman, thinks that's okay.
But what happened on the Capitol is, you know, CNN ran an entire hour calling it the Trump insurrection yesterday.
We want to get to some sound here.
I want to get to, I think we're still downloading it.
Do we have Glenn Greenwald?
We're still working on that.
But breaking right now, Antifa is marching through the streets of Manhattan with shields demanding that Trump and Pence leave the White House now.
Do we have tape of that?
Cut 24, we're still waiting for that too.
Okay.
So, but we have a set of circumstances here where the president does not have access to his Twitter account and the Democrats, well, it's completely eliminated.
Facebook, Spotify is now gone.
TikTok, they banned him from TikTok.
TikTok, even though I doubt he had a profile there on the TikTok app, but he can't now, regardless.
I don't think so.
But German Chancellor Angela Merkel blasted Twitter's decision to ban U.S. President Donald Trump.
This is from Glenn Greenwald's Twitter feed.
It says here that what makes Merkel's comments particularly striking, apart from her well-reported acrimony with Trump, is that Europe generally and Germany specifically have far less permissive free speech traditions than the U.S. Yet even Merkel finds this alarming.
Amazingly, so does the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union, which is pretty notoriously a leftist organization these days.
But I'm glad to see that they're standing to their principles of free speech for everyone.
They had a spokesperson say, we understand the desire to permanently suspend him now.
Take that with a grain of salt.
But it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions, especially when political realities make those decisions easier.
I don't think I could have worded that better myself.
It's true.
These platforms really are indispensable.
So the Russians are bashing Twitter for their decision.
The Germans are bashing Twitter for their decision.
In a strange turn of events, the former countries that embrace totalitarianism are telling America, cut it out.
Let's play this cut here.
Let's play cut.
Do we have Glenn Greenwald?
Glenn Greenwald is a liberal.
I agree with him on very little politically, but he has been phenomenal on platform access.
He's been great on freedom of speech and also journalistic integrity, of which there is very little anymore.
Play tape.
Well, one thing I think that we're clearly seeing is the initiation of a new war on terror, which I don't say lightly.
I say that because the Biden administration, what will be the Biden administration in about a week, is saying explicitly that they want, first of all, a new law to further criminalize domestic terrorism, even though every act that constitutes domestic terrorism is already criminalized.
What they want to do is increase their power to monitor political groups, to infiltrate them, to criminalize activities that currently are not criminalized, nor should they be, whether it be advocacy of speech or other things.
They're saying they want a new law, similar to the way that the 9-11 attack and the emotions surrounding it was instantly seized upon to institute a whole series of new laws that endure to this very day.
And so, Glenn Greenwald is spot on here by saying that all of the domestic terrorism laws are already on the books.
What they want is they want to criminalize being a Trump supporter.
They want to make it illegal to support President Trump.
And, you know, this is another thing that I think we have to understand: that no one here supports domestic terrorism.
But very few people that were in Washington, D.C. that were Trump supporters, supported any form of what happened on the Capitol there.
And even the people that were on the Capitol.
And so, to all of a sudden, act as if we need a new set of laws because of some of the activities that happen through groups that, by the way, have already been profiled as far-right white identitarian groups, as agitator and instigator groups, then that is in every single way a total disgrace.
Do we have COP 26 of Representative Crow?
Let's play CUT 26.
You know, what we have seen is the birth of a domestic terrorist movement.
This is not going away.
Donald Trump has radicalized his most fringe supporters.
And so, you know, you know him far too well from Colorado.
I sure do.
But they, look, the left always needs a problem to justify the increase of their own power.
And so by saying it's never going to go away, well, that is fear-mongering, okay?
But be very specific about what do you mean is not going away?
Do you mean that there will always be professional agitators and white identitarians that are going to try to hijack movements?
How many times do we had to hear from the media that Joe Biden is not represented by Antifa?
Antifa claims Joe Biden, but Joe Biden does not claim Antifa.
And to be very consistent here, why is it that BLM Incorporated was trying to breach the walls of the White House, which we'll get some clips on in just a second, when they were trying to breach the walls of the White House over the summer, they were never called insurrectionists and they were never called terrorists.
But the consequences of how we describe this, how we talk about this, will be so incredibly consequential.
Do you know there's already 52 domestic terrorism laws on the books?
What's another one going to do except maybe go outside of the bounds and attack Trump supporters and conservatives?
I think that we can all agree that attacks against government buildings is something we don't support.
Let's play some tape of that.
Here, look at that.
That is a fire right there outside of the White House.
That is the White House of the President of the United States.
And 67, see, wow, look at all that tear gas just feet away from the symbol of American democracy.
Burning, fire.
No, that's just mostly peaceful protesters.
This was called heroic and wonderful, not to mention the church that they nearly burned down right across the street.
And so, Because of what happened last week, the left is on a pathological campaign of destruction right now.
That's all they know how to do.
The left does not know how to build up new things.
They do not know how to create new institutions.
So they are trying, they have a new thing.
They're no flylist.
They're trying to get it to be that no one can ever fly on an airplane before.
And this was kind of at its crescendo point, at least up until recently.
Hopefully it doesn't get beyond this, when all the tech companies colluded together to ban President Trump.
Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook have made the decision to ban President Trump.
However, they have lost a very brilliant mind in the American Zeitgeist.
Emily Rotajowski, I can never pronounce her name.
Radha Judikowski?
Emily, the woman who's known for not wearing a lot of clothes, right?
Is that good?
Yeah, that's a fair thing.
That's right.
That's what she's most known for.
She actually had Rada Jokowski, right?
Radha Jakowski.
I'll take it.
All right.
She had a stroke of brilliance.
And by the way, she's not exactly someone I usually would go to for processing news and current events.
She said this.
She said, this gives Facebook slash tech slash Zuck the most power.
If he can shut the president up, at least she mentions he's the president, up off, he can shut any of us up or off, the pregnant star tweeted on Thursday.
My concern is that this gives big tech the opportunity to shut down left extremists who are important political organizers.
And she got ratioed big time.
The Twitter mob did not like the fact that Emily Rata Jaukowski, is that right?
Radha Jakowski?
I don't think I've ever said that name before.
They don't like the fact that she is speaking truth.
And so if you lost Emily Radajakowski, you got problems, folks.
Email us your questions, freedom at charliekirk.com.
People are asking us about whether President Trump has signed the Insurrection Act.
I see no evidence of that whatsoever, and no one I've talked to has implied that.
And so just want to kind of let you know that that is not something that we have seen or that we've seen any evidence or basis for.
Other questions here, freedom at charliekirk.com.
I want to get actually to this clip here.
We have the fire burning.
We played Glenn Greenwald.
And so the biggest kind of takeaway from what we've been talking about here is the conflation, right?
Is that every single person that was in Washington, D.C. is somehow conflated with the thugs that were attacking police officers.
And let me say it in very clear and simple terms.
If you attack a police officer and you're a BLM incorporated person, I call you a thug.
If you attack a police officer and you're wearing a hat of a political candidate that I support, you're also a thug.
I don't really think that is a hard thing to be able to build out.
However, if you just went to the United States Capitol and watched from afar, that is a huge difference than the people that were miles and the people that were actually in the building and the rotunda.
So there's like four kind of categories here.
Did you go to the ellipse?
Nothing wrong with that.
Did you go to the Capitol?
Nothing necessarily wrong with that.
Did you go on the Capitol steps?
Unwise, maybe something wrong with that.
Hard to enforce.
Did you go into the Capitol?
Probably something wrong with that.
But still, if you just walk to the rotunda and then you walked back in, foolish, probably illegal, you're going to get arrested.
You're not necessarily a domestic terrorist.
Now, if you went from the ellipse to the Capitol, into the Capitol, and you have zip ties, and all of a sudden you're kind of caravening down this, like that one guy who looks like he's doing some form of a Tom Clancy intervention.
I don't know who he thinks he is.
You know what I'm talking about?
That picture where the guy is like hanging on.
I was like, no, okay.
Then, yeah, you should be arrested and you should be held accountable.
However, there were tens of thousands of people, tens of thousands of people that went to the Capitol and did nothing, right, Isabel?
Absolutely.
And they did absolutely nothing wrong.
They have nothing to be punished for.
And yet somehow they're being conflated with these very few radical individuals.
And now all of a sudden, conservative equals radical.
Conservative equals no fly list.
And you can't have social media and you can't have guns anymore, says our friend David Hogg.
And, you know, the list could go on and on.
We have no rights anymore.
And we just have to say that.
And the train keeps going.
And the implication is this, is that the left really doesn't want us in what they call their country.
I mean, we know that.
They're making it abundantly clear.
So they're using every opportunity to misrepresent us.
Even those of us that made the conscious decision to not get near the Capitol, they're like, you're still awful because you were breathing the same air, and therefore you're both awful and you wear the same hat and I hate you and go away, right?
So it is.
They're also preaching unity, by the way.
Exactly.
That's their inaugural.
That's the theme of this year's inauguration is hashtag American Unity.
American unity.
And so they're, but some people were calling for extra support, weren't they?
Yes.
We're hearing just now from our team that the Capitol police chief there at the Capitol building sought the D.C. National Guard's help before the riots even started, knowing that they could be facing some sort of a problem there on Capitol Hill.
But allegedly, it was denied by their supervisors, by the politicians there in Washington, D.C.
And so here's a very interesting thing.
PragerU, great organization.
Isabel did some great work with them and continues to.
Dennis Prager, who's also on the Salem Radio Network, Isabel, do you remember the analogy that he used to use when he said, if I walked onto an airplane with the Wall Street Journal and you kicked me off the airplane, we would consider that to be absurd.
Do you remember him talking about that?
I do, yeah.
And we were like, oh, yeah, yeah, that's terrible.
Like, if you walked onto an airplane with the Wall Street Journal or with, you know, a Trump book and they kicked you off, we'd be like, that would be a bridge too far.
Well, women have been kicked off planes now for just talking about Donald Trump.
Right.
They are going to restrict banking access.
They're going to restrict phone access.
And at some point, you just have to ask them, like, do you want us in your country?
Like, how far are you willing to take this?
And what exactly are we, what exactly are, how are we supposed to exist in this country if you can't have access to social media, can't communicate, you can't have access to transportation, and they're already restricting, they're already talking about restricting PayPal and processing access.
So you can't start a business.
And so a very, like, very simple question is, how are we supposed to actually live in the same country together?
Because you are, and the media is doing this.
The media has been so sloppy and so reckless.
And they are the ones that are going to incite further problems in this country by looping everybody into this.
And I mean, they're trying to go after yours truly right now because we sponsored buses of students to go to a First Amendment rally that was miles away and hours before, hours after our students were even there.
However, in the rage, right, the madness of the crowds, as Douglas Murray would say, no, you're in the same zip code.
You're an enabler.
You're a terrible person.
And really what this goes to show is the left, and it really saddens me to say this, they find they have no reservations whatsoever to say that we don't want to live in the same country as you.
Well, they're trying to create an America that's not America anymore.
And to quote the great Dennis Prager once more, you can't love something that you want to change.
The left loves to say, America's great, it's the greatest country in the world.
It scores them a lot of political points on the campaign trail.
But then, as soon as they're elected into Congress, as soon as they're elected into the White House, they want to fundamentally change everything about our society.
Banning people from tech companies and from PayPal and from airplanes that just happen to disagree with you and vote a different way is not the United States of America.
And I think eventually we're going to come to a point here in the next few months where we have to legitimately ask ourselves, is this America that you want to live in or is this something completely different in its entirety?
Yeah, a lot of people are saying no.
And so now what we have seen, and the tech side is now just the latest frontier of this.
I want to get to some sound here of this.
It's kind of this new kind of silicon curtain.
You know, kind of how there was the Iron Curtain.
Now we have the silicon curtain that has been created where you are not allowed to actually use the platforms if you do not espouse all of their views.
So let's go to cut five.
Why did Nicole Hannah-Jones, the founder of the 1619 project, why didn't she lose her Twitter account when she justified destruction and terrorism?
Play cut five.
Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.
And to put those things, to use the exact same language to describe those two things, I think really moral to do that.
So she says very clearly, destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.
Justifying violence.
She never lost access to Shopify.
She never lost corporate donations.
In fact, corporate donations increased to BLM Incorporated and to the 1619 project.
And so let's go to another one here where we're saying Don Lemon, of course, was justifying violence.
He still said that, of course, you can keep the violence over the summer, that he can keep his Twitter account.
So the point is this: if you routinely incite violence and you're in the media, you get promoted and you get rewarded for that.
But the president gives a speech about voter integrity and his supporters come peacefully.
And let me say this again.
I know tens of thousands of people personally.
I don't know tens of thousands of personally.
I know thousands of people personally and tens of thousands of people that have contacted us.
That's a better way to say.
Tens of thousands of people that have contacted us that went to the ellipse there peacefully and didn't even get near the Capitol steps.
And the way the media has been building this narrative, which we have to push back against, and I encourage all of you to do this to all your friends, is two events and pull out a map for goodness sakes.
Show how far away these things are and how few people actually went from the ellipse to the Capitol.
Even the people that did, I know some people that just kind of stood there and watched and were saying, this is terrible.
And then they walked away.
There's nothing against the law to walk over there and say this is terrible.
But as we said in the other hour, look, as soon as you started to see things get heated up and you didn't leave, probably unwise, but not illegal, okay?
There's a lot of unwise things you could do legally in this country.
However, the left is now making this very dangerous argument that every single person that attended was part of this collective Borg, you know, resistance is futile and they were all feeding each other at all costs and they were all messaging each other secretly and privately saying, this is our chance to stage a coup.
Like, stop it.
Okay.
This was not an attempted coup against the United States of America.
This is a bunch of JV junior varsity thugs, the ones that went in and were instigators on the left or on the right.
The zip ties, really?
You think that guy is legitimately serious about staging a coup with the United States?
The guy that goes into Pelosi's office and puts up his legs.
You think that guy is someone that's really started to stage a coup?
You want a coup?
I'll show you a coup.
Peter Strzzk and Lisa Page, that was a coup against the president of the United States.
Not a bunch of guys that come in wearing hats with zip ties, acting as if they're going to take over.
What the media is doing is overly legitimizing these people.
Crime?
Yes.
Reprehensible?
Yes.
Multidimensional, sophisticated terror organizations.
Slow down there, pal.
Diane emailed us, and I do want to get to this because I said this in the other hour, and I think I actually supported her, and I just want to make this very clear, but it's a good email.
I'm writing to you because what you say on live stream today was incorrect.
You weren't even at the Capitol, so I'm not sure how you could be sure of so many of your misstatements.
Just to be clear, I wasn't.
You're right.
I was 2,000 miles away here in Arizona, but I do want to make clear what was happening here.
And just anyway, I just want to read her email because I think she missed what I said earlier, and that's good.
She said, most of the tens of thousands who peacefully walked to the Capitol, which is about a mile away from the ellipse, two miles, went for a rally and speakers there, like Brandon Stracha, who were scheduled to speak, to show our objection to election fraud.
You're exactly right.
Most of us had seen one or more of the organizer website having marched to the Capitol part of today's events.
There had been rallies against election fraud at the Capitol in previous weeks, so there's no reason to think it was not legitimate.
No, you're exactly right.
And then she says this.
Most of us had no idea the chaos that was going on inside.
I was by the Peace Memorial, had no idea I got home until even hours later.
Even people who were up close and saying they didn't know we had no internet because signals were jammed.
No, that's the point I made in the earlier segment.
What I am saying, though, is that as soon as kind of flash bang grenades started to get detonated, the people that ran to the trouble, I mean, come on, like that's, you know, you know better than that.
But there were a lot of people that still, that was the nuance I was making, is that the activist media first didn't even cover the enormity of the ellipse, then didn't show the smaller crowd to the Capitol, but then even show why people were going to the Capitol in the first place, which was for constitutionally protected speech.
We made the decision at turning point action not to send our kids to the Capitol.
We got them back on their buses and got them out.
But the people that did go to the Capitol that wanted to hear from Brandon Stracha, in fact, they were actually scheduled to hear from Congresswoman Lauren Boebert and other people that were scheduled to go outside and speak to them.
And some people that were just kind of there and seeing and watching.
And the Peace Memorial is quite a ways from the actual interior of the Capitol.
The Peace Monuments on the northern side and the James Abram Garfield Memorials on the south side.
And so, Diane, I appreciate your question, freedomatcharliekirk.com.
What I am saying, though, is that some people that have now been arrested saw the trouble going on in the Capitol.
They saw the barricades be broken and they ran towards it.
That's bad judgment, okay?
And I can tell you that some people got caught up in this, that some people got caught up in this, I think, incorrectly, and I think regrettably is really what I mean.
They regretted getting up, getting involved in all that.
So I appreciate your question, Diane.
I just want to make sure I made that very clear.
And I actually appreciate the critical emails at freedom at charliekirk.com.
Sometimes people miss some stuff, and I totally appreciate that.
Someone says this, hey, Charlie, Trump is scheduled to speak in 83 minutes.
What do you think he needs to say?
And what do you think he's going to say?
Well, we don't know if the president's going to speak.
One of my biggest annoyances over the weekend, did you get these texts?
Oh, I sure did.
And I was like, no, he's not going to speak.
And this is part of just kind of, once after January 20th, I'm just waiting and I'm just planning.
Post-January 20th, I'm going to do a comprehensive lockdown of a lot of the fake information that really good people like yourselves are being sent.
I'm not going to do it until after January 20th, but I could tell you that the president was never scheduled to speak over the weekend.
You got one of those texts, right?
Oh, so many of those DMs and comments.
And I responded, I said, who's telling you this?
And they said, oh, it's going to happen.
The president didn't speak this weekend.
So there is a lot of misinformation out there.
And so I just want to make sure that, you know, we, you know, were as clear and as accurate as we possibly can.
Let's get to some more questions here.
Freedom at CharlieKirk.com, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Let's get one here.
Greetings, Charlie.
We very much appreciate your YouTube program and watch it regularly.
Standing for truth to the nation and world.
We praise God for your voice, especially to your generation to inspire them to greatness based on truth.
We have a question.
We cannot get the full unedited version of President Trump's speech on January the 6th.
Do you have a source?
That's a great point.
I think RSBN should have it, right?
RSBN should have it, or did they take it down, Isabel?
I'm not sure if they've taken it down.
Our team is saying that they might have the full version here, but good luck finding the full version, especially on mainstream media outlets.
It took us 45 minutes with our team the other day as we were sitting in here broadcasting for you guys to find one specific clip of his statement saying that the demonstrations at the Capitol would be peaceful and patriotic.
And so RSBN, Rightside Broadcasting Network, is always a good place to watch all of those.
So I encourage you guys to check it out.
Isabel, what's on your mind?
You know, I have a lot on my mind, Charlie, and my hope is that people will be able to find real truth this week more than anything.
I think what I was so frustrated about last week in the midst of everything happening on Capitol Hill and the days that followed was just the sheer enormity of lies that I saw on my social media feeds when I watched television, when I started reading newspapers, even newspapers that I've generally trusted over the last few years.
And this idea that conservatives are all being conflated to be these violent, radical, insurrectionist, domestic terrorists is so disheartening to me because there's such an interesting cultural moment happening because of those allegations.
All of a sudden, conservatives are being encouraged to be kicked off social media platforms.
People are saying that we should be put on no-fly lists.
That's trending on Twitter right now as we speak.
And I've seen lots of familiar names on that Twitter feed right there.
People are saying that no longer should conservatives have access to the Second Amendment because we are violent insurrectionist terrorists and therefore it's an imminent threat to why we have the Bill of Rights.
This is exactly why we have the Bill Browns.
Moments like this where everyone's like, no, no, actually, I was 2,000 miles away.
We got our kids out of harm's way.
Even if you were at the Capitol and you were watching from afar, you still have the right to free speech and to own a firearm, despite what David Hogg wants to say on Twitter, okay?
Well, and already the First Amendment was under attack for several years, and we've been talking a lot about this with Turning Point USA for a very long time.
This is not a new idea.
Last year, 51% of millennials wanted to rewrite the First Amendment completely because it has no protections and clauses for quote-unquote hate speech, whatever they want to call that.
But that fight is just beginning now with all of these allegations.
And I won't be surprised when extreme legislation goes through the United States Congress here in the next few weeks after Inauguration Day.
Obviously, we can try to try some of those things through the court system and make sure that the judicial system can get kicked in to protect our rights, but that only goes so far as well.
So this is a unique time in American history that requires all of us to get involved in the process.
You can't sit back and watch this on your TV screen and scroll through your Twitter feed anymore and just assume someone else is going to say something and take care of it for you.
So let's walk through what's all happened in the last week, right?
So one week, about a week ago, on Tuesday, we lost the Georgia runoffs.
Horrible.
That feels like a year ago.
Geez.
This week has been awful.
I'm just going to be honest with you guys.
It's not been good.
And so then what happened on Wednesday, we were here for the whole thing.
You know, I had one of these journalists reach out.
They're like, where was Charlie Kirk in the midst of all this?
I'm like, well, the good news is I had a camera stuck in my face for five and a half hours.
So you can go watch exactly what I thought, what I felt.
In real time.
What I was drinking, which was tea.
The entire time.
And then kind of after that, the social media blue terror, you know, kind of was incited.
And then the parlor thing on top of it.
So can you give us the latest on Parlor?
Parlor just filed a lawsuit.
They did.
They just filed a lawsuit in federal court in Seattle because they've essentially vanished off of the social media stamp there and the internet at this point.
It started with the Google App Store taking the app off of its platform, saying that they didn't monitor speech heavily enough when it came to people inciting violence.
I'm reading the opposite from the founder of Parlor right now that thousands of people were hired to track violent language and hashtags for incitement to take that off in real time.
So that's interesting to see that double standard there.
Then Apple followed suit, took their app off the app store, and Amazon, who hosted the server, which basically means parlor.com, then said they felt uncomfortable hosting the domain for this website.
And they took that off of their servers, which now means parlor.com just does it.
So that's a super important point, Isabel.
Let's talk about that.
So a lot of people, and I've been educated on this, and I've done a lot of research on this.
What does it actually mean to have server space?
So everything you do on the internet is actually physically hosted somewhere.
Everything you do, every message that you send, every movie that you watch, and servers are kind of the new oil.
Server space is limited.
We do not have unlimited server space.
Amazon in the early 2000s, they got ahead of the game.
They saw that, and this was a 20-year project, by the way.
They are just finally reaping the benefits.
They really started in like 2015, but they started to realize that this internet thing's not going away.
And most of the internet has not yet been built.
And that in order to try and utilize quicker download speeds, you guys remember the internet in the early 2000s.
You had the dial-up connection, right?
All of that was done through antiquated old servers.
And so Amazon started to invest tons of money.
They basically became quietly, and no one really understood or appreciated a server company.
And it wasn't until 2013 when these things came around, our iPhones, all of a sudden when apps like Uber and apps like Snapchat and apps like YouTube and Instagram, all of a sudden servers became way more valuable than ever before.
Facebook has their own servers, but most of the internet, including Netflix, actually is hosted on Amazon web services.
Do you know what else is hosted on Amazon Web Services?
Twitter.
Twitter is hosted on Amazon Web Services.
In fact, Connor, can you get that thing that ALX sent us?
I think it was $15 million a month that Twitter pays Amazon Web Services.
So in order for Twitter to be able to have all the different inputs and outputs and store everything that anyone's ever said and all the pictures and all the videos, they need actual physical servers to be able to do it.
Server rooms are usually in the middle of deserts.
They're well protected.
Heavy security, because I mean, it could bring down the entire internet.
And they're usually temperature controlled.
And so, but Twitter does not have, they're not a big enough company like Facebook.
Twitter is a fraction the size of Facebook.
Twitter gets, I think, more attention than Facebook, but they're a fraction of the size, which kind of goes to show where all the conversation happens.
But Amazon, half of almost all of the kind of what's called pioneered internet, that's not the right term, but it's something that somebody used the other day that I saw on a podcast, meaning that is not in the corporate side of it, is almost all through Amazon Web Services.
And so Parlor gets on the scene and they're like, well, what's the cheapest, fastest, best server company out there?
And I know the head of Parlor.
He's a really nice guy.
I know a lot of the people behind it.
And God bless them all because they really try to do the best thing here.
And I'm going to keep on fighting for them.
Where they said, well, the best thing is Amazon Web Services.
It's cheap.
It runs well.
And it really is the gold standard.
So the top three, let's say, server companies out there is Amazon, which is the gold standard.
Then is Google and then Microsoft.
I think it's Microsoft Azuze or something.
It's Google Cloud, Microsoft Azuze, we'll get the exact term.
I can never remember it.
And then Amazon Web Services.
And so Amazon Web Services, though, is like, just to give you an idea of what they host, Facebook still uses Amazon Web Services for some of their hosting.
Facebook is starting to build their own servers.
Just to give you an idea of how powerful Amazon Web Services is.
Netflix spends $19 million a month with Amazon Web Services.
Twitch, $15 million, which is a streaming service mostly for gamers.
LinkedIn, get this.
LinkedIn owned by Microsoft.
Microsoft doesn't even use their own servers.
Think about that.
So this collusion, this kind of interweb is already there.
Facebook, $11 million.
Turner Broadcasting, $10 million.
BBC, $9 million.
Baidu, $9 million.
What's the rest of the list as well?
You got ESPN at $8 million.
Adobe, $8 million.
Twitter, $7 million.
And that's paying Amazon per month to use their gold standard of servers.
So this is an interesting situation now that they've kicked Parler off over ideological differences to no longer be able to use the servers.
Parlor has now responded, suing Amazon in federal court in Seattle, saying that this is a breaking of the First Amendment, a violation of free speech.
But interestingly, you've heard a lot on this broadcast, and I'm sure on your social media feeds in the last few months, about Section 230 in federal law, in our United States code.
Essentially, that shields social media companies and public platforms from civil liability in court.
So they can restrict content, they can remove users that they deem to be harassment or violent or objectionable, whether or not it's constitutionally protected whatsoever.
The question here that I think the court is going to have to answer is: does Amazon fall under this shield of civil liability?
And essentially, all of the companies that do so are called information service providers.
That to me sounds like what Amazon is doing through hosting these server domains for individuals.
So my anticipation is that they probably will be shielded from liability in court over this decision.
Yeah, that's right.
And so the, but what you have here, though, is kind of an extermination order that was given from on high where Google, Amazon, and Google, Amazon, and Apple, I'm sorry, Apple, all kind of got together and said, this parlor thing, let's do a favor for our boy Twitter here and knock him out.
So who benefits from this?
Twitter does, obviously.
This is a huge gift to Twitter.
Twitter is going to expand their AWS contract after this.
Are you kidding me?
And it should be illegal.
This is the exact reason antitrust laws were put into place to begin with.
And speaking to this need for a continued enforcement of our Bill of Rights, the First Amendment honestly is kind of obsolete when you shield the public platforms where people are engaging in free speech.
Free speech looks much different today than it did in the 1700s, but just because it's on a screen doesn't mean it's any less important.
And that is the point that we need to be making when it comes to continued policy and shielding liability from these companies with Section 230.
We have a cut for you guys to watch.
This is an example of antitrust abuse.
Exactly.
And we're going to show you guys this from Fox News here in a second because big tech can just wipe out any competitor that they see to all of their buddies there in the Silicon Valley just because they're protected from civil liability.
Let's play tape.
You talk about antitrust abuse.
This is a perfect example of it, given the fact that these companies have become so dominant that they are able to just wipe out another company, put them out of business.
We've been talking for a long time about the elimination of Section 230 in the Telecommunications Act.
That gives these companies the liability protection.
They can't get sued.
They can't get sued.
That is so important because all of a sudden, where do your rights live?
If you can't sue someone in federal court over a complete violation of your civil liberties, do they exist?
That's exactly right.
And so that's a phenomenal question.
And the answer is no, they don't.
Please consider supporting us at charliekirk.com/slash support.
Email us freedom at charliekirk.com.
Isabelle is the real hero today.
I've been losing my voice because I've been doing so many podcasts.
And so, Isabelle, you're a hero and a champ.
Please consider supporting us at charliekirk.com/slash support.
And thank you guys for emailing us your questions.