Liz Cheney, part of what was once the most reviled political family in America, has flipped on President Trump, dividing the GOP and the conservative movement down the middle. But who will win the battle: establishment GOP or Trump Republicans? Meanwhile, Don Lemon compares conservatives to the party of the KKK, and AOC advocates for an America Ministry of Truth. As the metaphorical knives come out for conservatives standing by Trump, the future "healing" promised by Joe Biden grows dimmer by the day. 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, today on the Charlie Kirk Show, we go through the impeachment fallout, Congresswoman Liz Cheney's attempt to divide the Republican Party and so much more.
Email us your questions, freedom at charliekirk.com.
If you want to support us, go to charliekirk.com slash support.
And if you want to help support this program, go to expressvpn.com slash charlie, expressvpn.com slash charlie.
Protect yourself from big brother and big tech.
Impeachment, fallout, and more.
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.
In our fast-paced world, it's tough to make reading a priority.
I totally get it.
At least it used to be.
At thinker.org, T-H-I-N-K-R.org, they summarize the key ideas from new and noteworthy nonfiction, giving you access to an entire library of great books in bite-sized form.
Read or listen to hundreds of titles in a matter of minutes, from old classics like Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People to recent bestsellers like Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules for Life.
I can tell you, thinker has helped me understand big ideas very quickly and quite enjoyably.
So if you want to challenge your preconceptions, expand your horizons, and become a better thinker, go to thinker.org.
That's thinkr.org to start a free trial.
Again, that's thinker.org slash Charlie.
T-H-I-N-K-R.org.
Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here.
Joined again with Isabel Brown.
And we are here in this very slow news day to walk through what exactly is happening to our country.
So it is official.
The president of the United States has been impeached twice.
He was impeached in a House of Representatives vote.
The quickest impeachment in the history of impeachment.
A story started to come out last evening that was showing that President Trump had to be basically held back by his aides not to go defend himself on the House floor.
And so the president has been impeached.
And there are 10 Republicans who voted for impeachment.
Let's get to some sound here.
I want to get to some sound here of Cut 92.
Holding rioters accountable for their actions is the answer.
And we are.
And if we'd prosecuted BLM and Antifa rioters across the country with the same determination these last six months, this incident may not have happened at all.
And go to Cut 93, which is the best cut, where Representative McClintock on the House floor says, if we impeached every politician who gave a fiery speech, this Capitol would be deserted.
Play tape.
If we impeached every politician who gave a fiery speech to a crowd of partisans, this Capitol would be deserted.
That's what the president did.
That is all he did.
This is a drive-through impeachment.
This is how much time we got.
They did this in less than 24 hours, Isabel.
Yeah, it was really within a span of two hours once they started debate and then finally wrapped up with voting.
It's probably the fastest debate we've ever seen on even the idea of removing a president, let alone following through with it.
So Liz Cheney, who is a congresswoman from Wyoming, who does not agree with the president or his supporters on trade, on immigration, on challenging entrenched corporate interests, and definitely does not agree on foreign policy, she came out very forcefully saying that she was going to support impeachment.
Now, in the coming segments, I'm going to play some flashback clips to what the media used to think about the Cheneys.
Now, if you think the media hates Donald Trump, Dick Cheney was Donald Trump before Donald Trump as far as how much the media hated a figure in American politics.
It's hard to put into words the venom and the hatred that the Cheney family and specifically Dick Cheney received for years.
Now, maybe this is part of Liz Cheney trying to remake the Cheney brand, trying to say, forget about Halliburton.
You know, let's talk about impeachment.
I don't know.
But if you go back into some of the sound in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, the way the media talked about Dick Cheney, I thought was reprehensible then and today.
But now Liz Cheney is being lauded and is being just celebrated by that very same media.
So Liz Cheney came out, a congresswoman from Wyoming, and she said that this is the worst betrayal of an oath of office.
We'll get the exact quote, but it was pretty aggressive language, wasn't it, Isabel?
Like the worst thing a president has ever done in the history of the country.
Okay, got it.
So she probably thought in her massive, like her own self-created image that she was going to bring dozens of people alongside of her, maybe 100 people, so that she could run for Speaker of the House.
Well, 10 Republicans followed her.
I don't have the full list.
I'm sure we can get it.
Looks like Adam Kinzinger, Peter Meyer, herself, obviously.
I think it's Christine Herrera, and we'll get the other names.
I'm just going off of pictures here.
I'm sure you can get all the names, Isabel, and list them off.
Now, this kind of drive-through sham impeachment should have been rejected by every single member.
Now, that's not to say if you hold the opinion that the president shouldn't have given that speech or you think he should have done things differently.
None of those necessarily, in any way whatsoever, are impeachable offenses.
This is what Liz Cheney said here.
And we have the list here, Isabel.
Do you want to read it off?
We do, yeah.
So there were 10 individuals in the Republican Party who voted for impeachment, breaking with the President of the United States.
Representative Liz Cheney sort of led the pack with the idea of breaking with the president.
We had Representative Herrera Butler, I believe is how you pronounce her last name.
Representative Catco, Representative Kinzinger, Representative Upton, New House, Mejer, Gonzalez, Rice, and Volodyau.
And Peter Meyer is from Western Michigan.
I think he's a new representative there.
And so let's go to Cut 51 of Liz Cheney talking about how we just had a violent mob assault the U.S. Capitol.
No question, the president formed the mob, the president incited the mob.
The president addressed the mob.
Whoa, okay, play cut 51.
Important is to just recognize we just had a violent mob assault the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to prevent us from carrying out our constitutional duty.
And there's no question that the president formed the mob, the president decided the mob.
The president addressed the mob.
He was at the flame.
And this is what America is not.
There's just been absolutely intolerable and unacceptable.
And the mob will not prevail.
So I'm going to agree with Liz Cheney, and then I'm going to work backwards.
I agree.
It was intolerable and unacceptable what happened at the U.S. Capitol.
And I agree, the mob will not win.
But respectfully, Congresswoman Cheney, you are now engaging in the very same mob behavior.
Let me ask you a question.
Why do we have due process?
Where did it come from?
Why do we have defense attorneys?
Where do these ideas come from?
Well, it came from English common law.
The idea of the presumption of innocence and being able to have charges brought against you, cross-examination of witnesses, the submission of evidence.
These things take time.
The sound that I just played from you is Congresswoman Liz Cheney talking the night of the awful events that happened at the Capitol.
She made a claim that is worthy of cross-examination.
The president formed the mob, the president incited the mob, the president addressed the mob.
Those are some very heavy charges.
Now, we know that there were hundreds of people already congregating on the eastern side of the Capitol building before the president even arrived at the Washington Monument two miles away.
We know that the president said, please be patriotic and peaceful.
Now, you might have the opinion of Governor Mike Huckabee, where he said, I think the president could have chose his words a lot more care much more carefully.
That's fine.
That's different than what Congresswoman Liz Cheney is saying.
And as we read from former Washington, D.C. Attorney General Shapiro, everyone is still responsible for their own actions.
Incitement is a very, very high legal bar to hit.
If we were to go through every single member of Congress that talks in heavy and charged language, there would be incitement calls all over the place.
What about Alexandria Casio-Cortez that talks at BLM Incorporated rallies, and after that they go loot and riot?
So, Congresswoman Liz Cheney, I agree with you.
We should not let the mob win.
Slow down then.
You know what is one characteristic of a mob?
Rushing to judgment.
Another characteristic of a mob is I only have one opinion.
No one can convince me of this, and I don't keep an open mind.
Now, I'm not trying to tell Congresswoman Liz Cheney or the people that voted for impeachment to keep an open mind about the events of the Capitol.
That's not what I'm saying.
Instead, think independently about, am I really prepared in the span of one week, no representation, no witnesses at all whatsoever, to all of a sudden use the highest level of constitutional power granted to you to impeach and remove a president of the United States.
That's a pretty high bar.
And you could be like us that are disgusted by the events that happened.
I'm watching this video last night of this police officer get bludgeoned by the fire extinguisher.
It's terrible.
However, if all of a sudden we are going to say we're not going to let the mob win and then you're going to start acting in your own form of a mob, then what exactly are we doing here?
I want to keep going through this because these arguments need to be confronted.
And without a proper defense, that is not an impeachment.
It's a show trial.
I'm going to tell you exactly what that means.
You may not know this about me, but I love studying the global economy.
I love seeking out financial wisdom.
When it comes to my own portfolio, I value precious metals.
Noble Gold is the firm I trust to buy gold and silver from, which can serve as a hedge of protection in your IRA.
First reason, they are a U.S.-based company.
Supporting American business is so important.
Second reason, Noble Gold has impeccable online reviews.
A great online reputation is a must if you're going to trust a team's financial counsel.
Third reason, Noble Gold has an experienced staff who works hard to make life easy for you.
Any paperwork that might pop up takes less than five minutes to complete.
Maybe it's an old 401k that needs a home.
Maybe you're just like me and curious about your options.
If so, grab a free gold guide by visiting noblegoldinvestments.com to learn more.
I respect this team, and I know you will as well.
Call NobleGold Right Now.
Tell them you heard about investing on my show.
They will find the right plan for your budget.
That's noblegoldinvestments.com.
I think we have Tucker Carlson loaded up in Cut 96.
Let's play Tucker Carlson's remarks.
There are a couple of obvious problems with this approach.
The first problem is it won't work.
By impeaching the president during his final week in office, Congress will not succeed in discrediting Trump among Republican voters.
In fact, it will enhance Donald Trump among Republican voters, obviously.
And so here's the argument: instead of allowing President Trump to serve out his term, only further platforming him and his voters does the exact opposite than what I think a lot of people are actually trying to do here.
And not as if I'm trying to give Democrats advice, but if they're really trying to make Trump go away, they did the opposite of what they should have actually done yesterday.
And so Congresswoman Liz Cheney led the charge yesterday to impeach President Donald Trump.
She was, at least from the Republican side.
Let me put it that way.
Two-thirds of Republicans voted to object to the counting of the Electoral College votes.
93% of House Republicans voted against impeachment yesterday.
And the interesting thing is that 64% of all polled Republicans, according to an Axios Ipsus poll, says that they support President Trump's recent behavior.
Only 17% of Republicans polled said that they think that he should be removed from office.
The speeches on the House floor were rushed and were this wasn't an impeachment.
This was a show trial.
A show trial is a tactic that was used by the Soviet Union as a way to make it seem as if they had some form of justice, but the end result was already basically well in, not just well in mind, but it's already there.
The president was not even given an opportunity to have counsel have an opportunity to represent himself.
Now, the other impeachment trial that President Trump went through, the impeachment process, last year, they wanted it to go on as long as possible to try to get as much TV time, to try to get as much air and exposure.
And the Democrats are torn on whether or not they should send the impeachment articles to the Senate, whether or not they should focus on President when President Biden becomes President Biden, his agenda, or whatever he wants to do to the world, or focus on impeachment.
Congressman Louis Gohmert and Cut 83 said something that really upset a lot of people.
I'm going to play Cut 83 and Cut 84.
Play tapes.
Here's a quote.
I just don't even know why there aren't more uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be.
Or sadly, the domestic enemies of our voting system and honoring our Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with their allies in Congress of the United States.
We were called enemies of the state.
Those are all quotes from our speaker.
And cut 84.
I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be.
Sounds like incitement to me.
Uprisings all over the country.
And so now the state of affairs as it is right now is a Republican Party that actually isn't as nearly fractured as I think Liz Cheney wanted to be or thought it would be.
For all intents and purposes, this is the lowest moment of President Trump's presidency.
It is also the last moments of his presidency.
And when they had the most amount of media cover imaginable, when they had the most amount to be paraded in the New York Times, The Washington Post, how many Republicans turned their back on President Trump's voters?
And forget President Trump for a moment.
I'm talking about his voters, 10 Republicans.
That goes to show that Liz Cheney's attempted effort here failed, and it failed dramatically.
Now, why is that?
Well, maybe it's because Congresswoman Liz Cheney has always wanted to try and undercut and trying to delegitimize President Donald Trump and his voters on issues like trade, on immigration, and on foreign wars.
And she just saw her opportunity right now to try and do that.
I'm going to read from an article from CNN, which is, I think, actually really, really well done right now.
It's investigators pursuing signs U.S. Capitol riot was planned by Evan Perez, CNN justice correspondent.
Evidence uncovered so far, including weapons and tactics seen on surveillance video, suggests a level of planning that has led investigators to believe the attack on the U.S. Capitol was not just a protest that spiraled out of control, a federal law enforcement official says.
Among the evidence the FBI is examining are indications that some participants at the Trump rally at the ellipse left the event early, perhaps to retrieve items to be used in the insult on the Capitol.
Okay, so left the early.
So these guys came with weapons, tactics, motives, and intention well beyond someone inciting them to do something.
It says here that at least some of the arrests made are already part of a strategy used in counterterrorism investigations to find even minimal charge and try to take a person of concern off the streets.
That helps ease the possible threat amid concern about possible attacks on the inauguration, officials believe.
And that is why they said that they arrested some people in the days leading to that.
However, this article itself kind of, I mean, I'm just going to be very honest.
It's scary and it is incomprehensible to me that these people would do that, whomever they are, and they should be held fully accountable to the law.
If you come to Washington, D.C. with weapons and you have tactics and schematics, to me, that is just reprehensible and horrifying.
And so that goes and plays against a lot of the narrative that the media is painting, where it was 100% this rally that led to what happened on the Capitol.
Let's listen to Don Laman, Cut 85, where he says Trump voters are on the side of the Klansmen and other very horrible things.
Play Cut 85.
If you are on that side, you need to think about the side you're on.
I am never on the side of the Klan.
I am never principal people, conservative or liberal, never on the Klan side.
Principal people, conservative or liberal, never on the Nazi side.
Principal people who are conservative or liberal, never on the side that treats their fellow Americans as less than, that says that your fellow Americans should not exist, that says your fellow Americans should be in a concentration camp, or that sides with slavery.
Well, first of all, Don Laman, it was David Duke who endorsed Joe Biden and it attacked Donald Trump for being too sympathetic to the cause of Israel.
And also, it is the Democrat Party that founded the KKK, was pro-segregation, and has always cared more about people's skin color than about their character.
They cared much more about immutable characteristics.
However, Don Laman, let me be very clear.
What you're doing here is irresponsible, reckless, and dangerous.
You are looping in decent and good patriots with fringe people all into one because it makes you feel good and it proves a political point.
And Isabel, we find this all the time on college campuses where all conservatives are the worst people ever.
All of you guys are racist and terrible and awful.
Right, Charlie.
And importantly, we're hearing from Don Lamon, our friend from CNN this morning, that this behavior is treating people lesser than what we're seeing from conservatives in America.
But isn't looping all conservatives in with, you know, Nazis and Hitler and Osama bin Laden, as we heard yesterday from Eric Swalwell and the party of the KKK, isn't that precisely treating half the country as lesser than by assuming that you automatically have these affiliations simply because of how you cast a ballot for president of the United States?
I find the hypocrisy just stunning in this statement from a CNN anchor on live national television.
And it's so ironic to me that they're always seeming to be on defense from the left when people identify the ideologies of Antifa and BLM Incorporated as coming from the left side of the aisle, but they don't hesitate one bit to loop in every conservative in America with the most radical ideology they can think of.
And if Don Laman read his own news organization's article, he would take pause and say, okay, based on what our own investigative unit has found, there are people that came there to Washington, D.C. with malevolent and awful intentions.
And those people happened to find a moment when there was 300,000 peaceful people right nearby at the Washington Monument.
Let's get to cut 91, MSNBC's Nicole Wallace.
I mean, I just, working the White House after 9-11, everything, and again, these policies are so controversial, so it's not a perfect parallel.
But every policy that was pursued was to find out what the terrorists were saying, and we listened to them.
That's what metadata was.
I mean, knowing what they said online is just basic intelligence.
Why wasn't a memo from Norfolk like that responded to with a show of force to protect against the occasion that that came true?
It turns out it did, but why isn't that the practice of the FBI?
So this is the new narrative, which is, wait, why aren't you spying on like 70 million people?
Why aren't you doing that?
And look, I'm with her.
If you're a terrorist, then, okay, but the definition of a terrorist is now being looped into tens of millions of voters all across the country.
And it's not just her.
We've played tape of this now being a constant drumbeat from people on the left, where they are now going to massively increase the security state.
I read a really good article this morning, believe it or not, in the Los Angeles Times, where they said we cannot, we have to resist the urge to loop in some of the people that were just walking by the Capitol or the people that were at the Washington Monument or the ellipse and loop them into the people that were actually storming, that were barricades and bashing cops.
And the argument they were making is as soon as you do this massive guilt by association exercise, you lose what it means to actually preserve common law and the rule of law in our country.
And look, I understand that tensions are still very high.
I don't think there's very much disagreement with what a lot of people are saying with what happened.
I want to read a quote here from Ken Langogan.
He's a co-founder of Home Depot.
And this is what he said.
He said, I think the biggest mistake anybody is going to make is to try and rationalize what happened last week, what the president did and what the crowd did.
There should be no mitigation at all.
Whoa, it was horrible.
It was wrong.
I'm shocked.
Last Wednesday was a disgrace.
I agree.
It should never have happened in this country.
I agree.
If it doesn't break every American's heart, something is wrong.
It breaks my heart for sure.
I didn't sign up for that.
And so he's coming out very forcibly against Republicans here.
However, I will just, you know, respectfully push back and say, if you are all of a sudden going to have no nuance at all whatsoever and say every single person that was in the zip code of Washington,
D.C. is equally guilty of the lunatic that planted pipe bombs or the guy that was caravening down the side of the wall or the guy with zip ties or the guy that had the 1960s helmet, then that is not the correct way to handle it.
And one of our team members here just messaged me, and this is exactly right, is that the left and the Democrats, they're intentionally leaving out the nuance.
That the nuance is there.
And that's where our job is, to try to explain the differences and the different gradations of what happened here.
And one question I do have, though, is that if there was all this chatter, public chatter leading up to what happened on January the 6th, why was the security so minimal outside of the Capitol?
Why did they have barricades that you could skateboard over?
Why didn't they have massive fences like they do at the Republican National Convention and the Democrat National Convention?
I don't know.
That's going to be for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and for the National Guard to have to explain, or at least the people that are in charge of deploying the National Guard.
Thomas Soule has a new piece out who's terrific.
And he says here, he says, is truth irrelevant?
He says this, it is amazing how many people seem to have discovered last Wednesday's riots was wrong, when many of those same people apparently had not noticed that when riots went on for weeks or even months in various cities across the country last year, for too many people, especially in the media, what is right and wrong, true or false, depends on who it hurts, helps and hurts politically.
Too many people who are supposed to be reporters act as if they're combatants in the political wars.
It's well said.
And some people say, well, this was a federal building.
Well, what about the federal courthouse that Antifa was storming in Portland?
What about the new country that they formed in Chaz?
What about their attempts to get into the White House?
All of that was looped into mostly peaceful protesting.
Let's go to Cut 88 here.
And Isabelle, I want to get your thoughts on here.
Alexandria Ecasio-Cortez pontificating.
Go to CUT 88.
You know, I do think that several members of Congress in some of my discussions have brought up media literacy because that is a part of what happened here.
And we're going to have to figure out how we reign in our media environment so that you can't just spew disinformation and misinformation.
Isabel?
Reign in our media environment.
That is terrifying language.
And I say that with a smile on my face because it's kind of comical the way that she's saying that.
But just recently, I reread 1984 for kicks and giggles just to revisit what that looked like.
It was.
It was an instruction manual for the left.
And this reminds me eerily of the Ministry of Truth from this book, from Orwell's vision of what the future might look like.
You have no freedom of speech if you have no freedom of information, period.
And we talked a little bit about this yesterday, but when you control 100% of the narrative, you have a free pass to rewrite history, to determine what's happening in the present, and obviously to guide the future as well.
Also, I find it interesting that this is the same individual who once told us it is more important to be morally correct than factually right.
Yet all of a sudden, facts seem to be very important to her in this age of media disinformation.
And she's saying, she said very clearly, the way I heard it, you know, that First Amendment thing?
Can we like get rid of that?
The whole freedom of speech thing?
That's what I heard when she said that.
Look, the essence is this, is that the left, if they had the buttons to push, they would push the button to get rid of freedom of speech and dialogue.
Now, thankfully, we have a Bill of Rights, so it's not that easy.
But what we consider to be fact-finding and investigation, she considers to be disinformation.
And interestingly enough, there's a court case I want to get into in the next segment, New York Times v. Sullivan, which is very, very important about this.
Isabel, what's on your mind?
A lot's on my mind, Charlie, and I'm frustrated that we've come to where we are today.
I will just say our democratic institutions that were established by our founding fathers were meant to stand the test of time, but we're definitely fighting the ability to make those things stand the test of time.
Impeachment has just become a total mockery of what it's supposed to be.
We saw a total sham impeachment be rushed through yesterday in record time, even before any evidence came out of what happened last Wednesday.
We went through a little bit of that this first hour.
And obviously now we're seeing the left try to prevent individuals from having the ability to question anything.
All of a sudden, questioning voter integrity means you're inciting a violent riot.
If you question what's happening online, you're part of the problem.
You're part of the mob and your account needs to be deleted.
And it's just disheartening for me to see our lack of ability as a society to judge people as individuals.
We just have to loop them in in a giant mob.
I agree completely.
And there is no detail or nuance.
First Amendment rights are just being eroded in more ways than one.
And people are saying, so what if you have an opinion?
If you share that opinion with somebody else, then you must have also done what they did and done it.
At the worst possible level imaginable.
Now, what we're going to start to unpack here is this tech issue, especially in the next hour.
Let's go to Cut 97.
John Matzey or Mates says that this attack on them, which it is, this was a coordinated attack on Parler.
This is something they may never be able to come back from.
Cut 97.
It is a real threat.
I mean, we're going to fight and do everything possible to come back as soon as possible.
It could be never.
I mean, we don't know yet.
Could be never.
So a startup company just wants to get into the social media space, and three $1 trillion companies worked in collusion and said, not so fast, my friend.
You're growing too quickly.
We are going to suffocate you.
Now, the reason they're using is that they were involved because of lack of moderation in the capital attack.
However, reports have now come out to show that the people that did this heinous act were mostly using Twitter and Facebook and some of these other publicly traded platforms, YouTube.
And so the question is, where was the blame on those tech giants for this?
Instead, they saw this as an economic monopolistic opportunity.
After a tragedy, these $1 trillion companies all kind of stepped up and did one mostly for Twitter because Parlor was eating into Twitter.
And they said, let's take them out.
Let's take out their distribution.
Let's take out their servers.
Let's take out their credibility.
And like that, the company may never return.
Dan Bongino is saying very clearly that they will return, but they might return in different capacity.
Can you read that Apple article there from, I think it's Business Insider?
It was Yahoo News.
But yeah, we read this interesting headline this morning before the show that made us really scratch our heads when it came to how it was written.
Here's the headline from Yahoo News this morning.
Parlor, a social media app that was used to organize the attack on the U.S. Capitol, needs to set up moderation to get back on the iPhone, Apple CEO Tim Cook says.
That's right.
How misleading is that?
Yeah, completely and totally.
And so it's very interesting because we have now seen a steady assault on every single social media competitor you can imagine.
Rumble, Rumble.com is also struggling because they're not even being given distribution.
Rumble.com is suing Google and YouTube for monopolistic practices for $2 billion.
And part of what makes a free market work is competition, is the ability to be able to take risks as an entrepreneur, present a better idea, and hopefully get support behind that.
What makes this pattern of behavior so incredibly dangerous is when these $1 trillion companies can have more power than the government, where we have the country of Twitter, we have the country of Google, we have the country of Amazon that lives in America and shuts them out totally and completely.
That's horrifying.
In fact, that goes to show that freedom of speech is nothing more than just a esoteric idea that cannot exist on the largest platforms in this country.
And to this day, the president of the United States, right today, the president of the United States cannot go on any major digital platform and have his voice be heard.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email us your questions.
As always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
If you want to support us, go to charliekirk.com slash support.
Make sure you're subscribed to the Charlie Kirk Show.