Facts First in Trump’s Impeachment — the Good, Bad, and Insane
After tackling the National Guard disgrace in DC, Charlie dives headlong into the imminent Trump impeachment trial heading to the Senate. Did Trump incite an insurrection? Do any portions of the president's speech actually incriminate him? Is there footage from the Capitol that casts a cloud over the Democrat's case? Can you even hold an impeachment trial once a president has left office? Reviewing just the facts, Charlie answers all of these questions and much more. 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.
Why are National Guard heroes sleeping on the floor in a parking garage in Washington, D.C.?
The Senate is moving forward with an impeachment trial.
What is President Trump's defense?
And I mentioned in this episode something that President Trump could have done differently and a mistake I think he made in the speech, but not one that we believe is impeachable.
That and so much more here on the Charlie Kirk Show.
If you want to support us, go to charliekirk.com/slash support.
Senate impeachment trial is coming.
Heavy News Day.
We have the answers.
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.
Truth is very important to me.
Pursuing truth is a huge part of who I am and what I stand for.
When you look around at what's happening to our country, you can see why many people are experiencing real frustration with the news media, along with feelings of uncertainty and a lack of hope for the future.
How can we know which is true and where or in whom we can place our trust?
The only place I've found unwavering truth and peace is my faith in Jesus Christ.
If 2020 has beaten down your spirit, I'd like to recommend a book called Reflections on the Existence of God by best-selling author Richard Simmons III.
Reflections on the Existence of God is a collection of short essays that tackles the biggest questions of all.
Does God exist?
This book is well researched and easy to read.
Former White House aide Wallace Henley says, quote, I've taught apologetics for many years and have read many scholars.
Every scholar mentioned this book.
Of all books on apologetics, Simmons is the best I've ever heard.
If you want to challenge yourself to spiritual intellectual growth, then be willing to ask yourself life's toughest questions.
I challenge you right now to get your copy of Reflections on the Existence of God by Richard Simmons III.
Go to reflectionscharlie.com.
That's reflectionscharlie.com.
Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here.
Welcome to another episode of the Charlie Kirk Show.
Back here at HQ and here with Isabel Brown.
Excited to be here, Charlie.
All right, so let's get right to the news of the day.
We have breaking over the evening.
It looks as if there was a story that's really gone viral of thousands of National Guardsmen forced to vacate the Capitol.
I am reading from Politico.
We feel incredibly betrayed.
And I read, quote, yesterday, dozens of senators and congressmen walked down our lines, taking photos, shaking our hands, and thanking us for our service.
Within 24 hours, they had no further use for us and banished us to the corner of a parking garage.
We feel incredibly betrayed.
There was outcry from both political parties.
Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer said, quote, if this is true, it's outrageous.
I will get to the bottom of this.
And Tom Cotton also followed with condemnation.
The question is, how did this happen in the first place?
And also, we are not going to do what the media would do if Donald Trump was president.
But let's just pretend that Donald Trump was president and this happened.
If Donald Trump was president and there were thousands of National Guardsmen in a parking garage, this would be not just the number one story.
There would be massive repudiation and condemnation from every single news outlet.
And Donald Trump would have been forced to comment on this already.
To date right now, President Biden has not commented, to the best of my knowledge, on what has happened with these National Guard members that have been put in the parking garage.
Congressman Madison Cawthorne, a friend of the show and a friend of mine, visited the National Guard members last evening.
And that video has over 1 million views on Twitter.
And so the question should just first and foremost be, why are they still in Washington, D.C.?
If you do not have the facilities, if you do not have the places for them to sleep, to house them, and there is not a clear and present threat in Washington, D.C., why are these people exactly here?
5,000 troops in one Senate garage with two stalls for a bathroom and one electrical outlet.
I'd love to see how they decided who got that one electrical outlet.
5,000 troops just there.
There are still over 20,000 troops in Washington, D.C. Why?
Well, the answer they say is because of what happened on January the 6th.
Compensating to this over-the-top degree does not change what happened on January the 6th.
I understand maybe having 5,000, 6,000 total troops and positioning them, but the overwhelming show of force seems somewhat political.
In fact, governors are now beginning to recall their troops, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida and Governor Sununu from New Hampshire.
And by the way, this is all in the midst of a pandemic.
While we're not supposed to be close to each other, 5,000 troops were on top of each other in a Senate garage, no social distancing, no cell service, just kind of banished to the outskirts of the Capitol.
One National Guards member says, quote, and I'm reading, yesterday, dozens of senators and congresspeople walked down our lines, taking photos and shaking our hands and thanking us for our service.
Within 24 hours, they had no further use for us and banished us to the corner of a parking garage.
We feel incredibly betrayed.
Now, Democrats and the media are a little confused right now.
They're short-circuiting because the muscle memory that they've developed over the last four years all of a sudden won't work.
I can guarantee you that some of these reporters immediately, without even thinking about it, typed in White House press secretary request for comment, and they realized, oh, we don't do that anymore.
I guarantee you some reporters were about to call one of their sources inside the White House and they're like, oh, never mind.
You know what's so amazing about this political article?
Nowhere, according to, and I've just did a quick glance of it, does it say that the White House or President Biden were asked to comment on this story?
Could you imagine if thousands of National Guard troops just a week ago were in the United States Senate parking garage?
No, beyond my wildest dreams.
They would say, the White House has refused to comment.
Donald Trump, it's because Donald Trump has not sufficiently thwarted the Chinese coronavirus.
They never call it that, but you understand what I mean.
And so this story, well, obviously, it looks like it's being fixed.
Looks like the troops are getting back into proper facilities.
Greg Abbott from Texas is recalling his troops, and that's good.
But I think the bigger takeaway from this story is a lesson of how the media is now going to portray controversies.
Remember how they portrayed kids in cages?
Something that Donald Trump actually opposed, never supported, that was a policy of the Obama administration?
Kids in cages.
All because of Donald Trump.
Wrong.
The photos they were using were all under Barack Obama's administration and Joe Biden's administration.
But that didn't fit the narrative.
And so the takeaway from this specific story, and by the way, it was only largely broken and it went viral thanks to Benny Johnson from Turning Point USA and Congressman Madison Cawthorne going down.
And then lawmakers on both sides realized that there was some disgust here.
But Isabel, who's actually in charge of these troops?
Who's their commanding officer, if that's the correct term?
Well, Charlie, we were speaking before the show, just asking one another, how did this happen?
This doesn't make any sense to us how 5,000 people could be banished to the corner of a parking garage, no social distancing, which is of concern to many of these individuals.
One bathroom, no access to electrical outlets, in freezing temperatures, mind you.
This is the middle of winter, many of which were almost hit by cars.
People were saying, I've never been treated like this during all of my time in the service.
I just can't believe that I feel like I've been booted to the curb and told, figure it out on your own.
Who allowed this to happen?
By any logical standards, it would go in the chain of command in the military.
It would go back to our commander-in-chief.
Obviously, I think there's a lot more to the story here that's going to be unfolding within the next few days.
But ultimately, I just see such a lack of leadership in this situation.
It's so disappointing to me.
And I guess this person, Janine Burkhead, the Guard's inauguration task force commander, confirmed in a statement shortly after midnight that the troops were out of the garage and back into the Capitol building as authorized by the Capitol Police Watch commander.
Capitol Police spokesperson Eva Malecki said the department recently asked that troops' shifts be reduced to 12 hours to eight.
These are not, these are National Guard members of the states, which is a difference than if you called in the Marines or you called them the 101st Airborne.
That's not to say that they're not people that are also serving the military that are also National Guards members, but there's a distinction there that's really, really important, that these are deployed by the states in times of emergency or in times to try to quell public unrest.
And the way that this story kind of unfolded is a lesson for all of us.
And it shows that Biden will be given credit for everything and blamed for nothing.
And we're seeing that in a variety of different stories.
What if I told you that in just the last couple days, the Chinese coronavirus pandemic has turned the corner?
I know it's amazing.
I want to read a couple headlines from you.
On January 19th, NPR, where your tax dollars are going, National Public Radio says, quote, as death rate accelerates, United States records 400,000 lives lost to the Chinese coronavirus.
Yesterday, on the 21st of January, quote, current deadly United States coronavirus surge has peaked, researchers say.
Within two days, we go from death rate accelerating to death rate plateauing.
I'm waiting to independently confirm this because I have one of our team members of the Charlie Kirk show watching CNN because he, I guess he really decided he wanted some punishment today to see whether or not I don't think their ticker symbol of the Chinese coronavirus numbers are on anymore, are they, Connor?
I don't think they are.
And so we're checking.
We're going to see if CNN is doing it.
But remember, CNN had that huge board of cases, deaths, worldwide cases, and it kind of had this drumbeat of anxiety.
I mean, every time you turn on CNN, like, oh my goodness, things are terrible.
Things are horrible.
According to reports, and we will verify this, they've taken off the ticker symbol as well.
You are seeing specific and deliberate moves by the people in power to try and all of a sudden create a narrative under now President Biden that the virus is tapering.
It's not as big of an issue anymore.
And he will deserve credit for anything positive that happens, but anything negative, not so fast.
Senator Chuck Schumer has come out and said that he is going to move forward with the impeachment proceedings, and that's going to start on Monday.
Nothing says uniting the country like impeaching a guy who's golfing at Trump International Golf Course in Florida.
Okay, so the Senate has now said they are going to proceed with articles of impeachment.
Senator Chuck Schumer has come out and has said that starting Monday, there will be new articles of impeachment against the former president of the United States, not the president of the United States, the former president of the United States.
Now, there are arguments in the legal community that this is not even constitutional.
That can you impeach someone who is removed from office?
There are competing opinions on this, and it remains to be seen.
Remember, constitutional provisions do not bother Democrats.
They are going to proceed no matter what.
Let's go to cut 110.
Boy, we have a lot of cuts.
That's how hard our team works here on the Charlie Kirk show.
Cut 110.
Chuck Schumer on the floor saying that there will be a Senate trial to impeach Trump.
Play tape.
Now, as I mentioned, the Senate will also conduct a second impeachment trial for Donald Trump.
I've been speaking to the Republican leader about the timing and duration of the trial.
But make no mistake, a trial will be held in the United States Senate, and there will be a vote on whether to convict the president.
I have spoken to Speaker Pelosi, who informed me that the articles will be delivered to the Senate on Monday.
Just the fact that he is Senate majority leader to me is just so incredibly frustrating.
It should never have happened.
And there's actually, this is probably a different conversation for a different time, but former Senator Perdue, I think if he would have even contested the election results the first time against John Ossif, I think he would have gotten over the 50% threshold and the Democrats would not have control of the United States Senate.
Okay, however, the Democrats are now proceeding with impeachment at full speed.
And at the crux of this impeachment is whether or not Donald Trump incited the activities on January the 6th.
Now, the first impeachment was a drive-by impeachment.
It was a bogus impeachment.
There's only been four impeachments out of the House of Representatives in American history: Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Donald Trump.
He has 50% of all the impeachments.
And that just kind of goes to show not that Donald Trump is the worst president ever, the hyper-partisan political nature that we live in, that the Democrats will immediately, instantaneously reach for the most severe nuclear option imaginable.
And if we are serious about kind of trying to add context or clarity to what they're doing, then we need to take a step back and say, if the Democrats had a step beyond impeachment, would they use it?
The answer is, of course, they would.
And some people are asking us, and they're emailing us, freedom at charliekirk.com, what do you think about impeaching Biden?
Well, first of all, it's not going to happen.
We're a couple days in.
But I don't like the trivialization of the impeachment process.
I don't.
I don't think that someone should be impeached for something they necessarily did before.
And some people say high crimes and misdemeanors.
Trust me, I get all of that, especially when it comes to the current power structure.
But impeachment, as the founders intended it, was not something that was just supposed to be thrown around haphazardly.
Andrew Johnson was impeached over 100 years after the founding of our country.
Can you get the exact date?
I think Andrew Johnson was impeached in the 1870s.
1868.
1868.
So not quite 100 years.
So it took about 85 years, more or less, from the founding of our country for the first impeachment to proceed.
And the Andrew Johnson impeachment was just basically about cabinet appointments, if I remember correctly.
It was something about someone got appointed to something and they held him in contempt and impeachment was used against him, but he was acquitted in the Senate trial, if I'm not mistaken.
So my memory could be not serving me on that.
And then Bill Clinton was obviously lying under oath, Whitewater investigation, special prosecutor Ken Starr, who successfully moved impeachment through the House of Representatives and the Senate acquitted him because he did lie under oath.
And so then President Trump's first impeachment, ridiculous, we have to even go over this, was the Ukrainian phone call, not the Mueller report, nothing to do with Russia, one phone call.
And we went through that.
We know way too much about all of that cast of characters, Volcker and all these guys, and Shmerich Shimarela, who just interestingly disappeared.
He'll probably become director of national intelligence by the end of this term.
All of it leads to us to this impeachment.
Why does it matter?
Actually, it's super important.
Every new year, all you hear is people say, new year, new me.
That usually means they'll be picking up better habits or trying new things.
And if you do take up a new hobby, even better that you have amazing audio that will make the experience even better.
That's why I recommend wireless earbuds from Raycon.
Whether it's following along to directions in the kitchen, binging an audio book while learning to knit, or powering through a new workout while pumped up playlist in your ear, a pair of Raycons can make any activity easier and a better time.
Raycon makes great sound accessible to everyone.
Their wireless earbuds start at half the price of other premium audio brands.
And guess what?
If you think having white stems dangling out of your ears looks ridiculous, that's something you don't have to worry about.
With Raycon, they come in range of stylish colorways, but always with a comfortable in-ear fit with a more discreet look.
People love Raycon.
Our team uses them all the time.
Raycon's offering 15% off all their products for my listeners.
Here's what you got to do to get it.
Go to buyraycon.com slash Kirk.
That's it.
You get 15% off your entire Raycon order.
So feel free to grab a pair and spare.
That's 15% off at buyraycon.com slash Kirk.
Buyraycon.com slash Kirk.
This is CNN politics.
Quote, McConnell privately says he wants Trump gone as Republicans quietly lobby to him to convict.
Okay, this might just be CNN doing what CNN does.
Trump is gone.
Okay, he's not president anymore.
So what they really mean is they want Trump gone forever, never be able to run again, and to punish him indefinitely and forever.
The article says, quote, and this is from CNN Politics by Michael Warren and Jamie Gangle.
Quote, as the House prepares to send articles of impeachment to the Senate on Monday, CNN has learned that dozens of influential Republicans around Washington, including former top Trump administration officials, have been quietly lobbying GOP members of Congress to impeach and convict Donald Trump.
The effort is not coordinated, but reflects a wider battle inside the Republican Party to those loyal to Trump and those who want to sever ties and ensure he can never run for president again.
And it continues to go on here.
But at the core of all of this, the real question will be, when it comes to the Senate impeachment, will they actually decide to impeach and convict based on their pent-up hatred and fear of Donald Trump, or actually the merits of what the complaint is?
Those are two completely different things.
You see, when we had the drive-by impeachment brought to you on the Republican side by Liz Cheney and her nine Republicans, you see, Liz Cheney thought that she was going to be leading many dozen, maybe even a hundred people into a kind of revolution against Donald Trump.
And she was kind of standing there all alone.
And the front page of Politico right now at politico.com says Republicans who impeach Trump are already on the chopping block.
Quote, candidates, donors, and local party officials are organizing against the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump.
It's kind of contradictory to the CNN article.
I wonder whose sources are better, Politico or CNN.
I'm sure that there's some truth to both stories, but we know, because we're actually in the conservative base, that there is no appetite.
In fact, there is no tolerance for anyone right now that will proceed with the conviction and the impeachment of Donald Trump.
And you're going to see a lot of people that are going to try to kind of split the middle.
There are going to be people that say Donald Trump did not act properly at the rally.
You're going to have people that say Donald Trump shouldn't have spoken and all this, but impeachment shouldn't be used for such a measure.
We can get into all of that.
However, at least the vote is the vote.
The vote is the same.
It's either yes to convict or no to convict or yes present.
That's present is basically the same as not voting.
And so, but Isabel, what did the founders actually intend when it came to impeachment?
Impeachment was a very questionable subject for many of the founders because they were worried about too much influence from Congress to control the presidency and the executive branch of government.
Neil Kinkoff is an essayist that really talks about the Constitution and the history of what the founders intended with this very specific process, specifically relating to this language of high crimes and misdemeanors.
And that's really where the bulk of debate on whether or not someone should be impeached remains today in the American political system.
He writes, the framers meant for the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors to signify only conduct that seriously harms the public and seriously compromises the officers' ability to continue.
If the phrase is given a less rigorous interpretation, which arguably we're seeing a lot of today, it could allow Congress to influence and control the president and the courts, which was exactly what the framers were worried about when drafting the language in the Constitution.
And it was never supposed to be just a vote of no confidence.
It was never supposed to be used as frequently as twice in one calendar year.
That's correct.
This would be the second impeachment in one calendar year.
So there's a lot I want to unpack with this impeachment, but let me start here before we get into the merits of the case and some of the specifics.
Why has President Joe Biden said to cut this out?
Why has he not said no impeachment?
Joe Biden went on endlessly about St. Augustine and unity and bringing people together.
It was an attempted speech of we are the world kumbaya.
Admirable.
It, I guess, it appeals to our ideals of trying to live cohesively.
You want to unite the country as the president of the United States, not the president of the Democrat Party, two completely different things, then you, as president, should use your political clout.
And this is what Joe Biden should say.
And guess what?
I'll applaud him.
I mean this non-sarcastically.
If Joe Biden gives a primetime address and says, Donald Trump is terrible, I want to applaud him for that, obviously.
Blah, End this impeachment right now.
And instead, use your time and attention to pass my COVID relief package.
Now, his COVID relief package is garbage, but at least that's what civil government is supposed to be, right?
I would respect it because all of a sudden you'd say, let's end this whole chapter of we need to purge who came before me at every means necessary.
The fact Joe Biden has not done this shows that he is now responsible for the division, for the acrimony, for the chaos that will ensue.
And when I mean chaos, I mean political chaos.
And anyone who decides to act improperly as a response to this, you know, we don't support any of that stuff.
We denounce it completely and categorically.
However, people are going to get very upset if they see their leaders as their first priority after they're sworn in.
Their first legislative focus is: let's go impeach the guy who's eating meatloaf at his private club in Palm Beach.
Like, that's really the focus legislatively.
And Joe Biden is owning this now.
There is no more deflection.
None.
There is no more, this is Donald Trump's fault.
This is Mitch McConnell's fault.
No, it's actually all on you, Joe Biden.
You're both the leader of the Democrat Party and the leader of the country.
And you just can't play this like, oh, this is a legislative item.
That's a bunch of nonsense.
You didn't allow Trump to have that excuse.
You didn't allow Bush to have that excuse.
You didn't allow Reagan to have that excuse.
And so the real question is, why is Joe Biden not doing that?
Maybe it's because he's waiting and he'll do it soon.
Probably not.
Maybe it's because what he's been saying all along about unifying the country has been a mirage.
It's vapor.
It's baseless.
Or a more likely scenario, Joe Biden's not in charge.
Joe Biden is afraid.
And Joe Biden, as being president, is afraid that Congress is going to be calling the shots and Senator Harris or Vice President Harris is going to be calling the shots and not him.
He does have some clout right now.
And if he wants to bring the country together, he could do something that is magnanimous and it would take courage and it would stand up to people both now, according to CNN, Republicans and Democrats, that now want to put us through this show trial circus.
This is from Politico.
The verdict may hinge on due process concerns.
Quote, during last week's impeachment, House Democrats did not allow Trump's lawyers to present evidence on his behalf or give him a shot to rebut the charges against him.
Sure, you can call this a red herring, and Democrats no doubt will.
This is from Politico playbook.
But traditionally, impeachments have allowed for this sort of rebuttal.
And the lack of that opportunity for Trump is clearly causing some issues for the Republican Party.
That's why McConnell laid down a marker on Thursday, good, saying that he believes Trump, no matter how guilty people think he may be, deserves time to prepare and have his case heard.
Remember, some Democrats have discussed a three-day trial, a three-day trial, three days.
And like that, he has to get together his defense, witnesses, due process.
This is a Soviet show trial.
Sources tell us that Pelosi, in addition to Biden's team, have privately made clear they want this done fast, though they're leaving it to Schumann to negotiate.
So still do it, but we'll unify the country after we impeach the guy before us, demoralize all the Trump supporters and say you're never going to be in power again.
Then we'll unify the country.
So that when they need unity coming, kind of waiting.
Isabel and I are waiting patiently for the unity.
So let me get this straight.
The unity will happen after the abolition of the Keystone Pipeline.
Men can now play in women's sports.
We'll get to that.
The impeachment, after the domestic war on terror, that's when we're going to unify.
We are eagerly waiting to unify.
We want to unify.
Tell me your plan to unify the country.
But the crux of the entire impeachment should surround itself on facts.
The American system, the American judicial system has its flaws.
You can stack juries, you can tamper with evidence, but it's still, alongside the British system, the crown jewel of the entire world.
It really is.
The British system might actually be a little bit better than ours because they really take impartial judges seriously there, like super seriously.
And I've talked, I have a lot of friends in London, and when I visited there a couple years ago, they said, I've lived in America, I've lived in the United Kingdom.
Even America is better at almost everything, but you really get a fair shake in the United Kingdom when you get in front of a judge.
And of course, our system of common law is based from the British system.
And the system is based in a couple very simple ideas.
That the state has the burden to prove why your freedom should get restricted, why you should be imprisoned, why you should be indicted, so on and so forth.
That you have the presumption that you didn't do anything wrong, the presumption of innocence.
That you, as a citizen, are given the not just the burden, but the opportunity to then have counsel representation so you do not have to advocate for yourself.
So it's not in the third world where you have to go in front of a judge and explain your own case.
You can have someone who is bound by the law to negotiate for you, meaning that they cannot argue against you.
They cannot break privilege.
And so the United States Senate is supposed to be a reflection of that system.
The United States Senate is supposed to not all of a sudden embrace some form of a 1960s Soviet show trial where if you're not in the right party and we didn't like what you did or tweeted or said, we're going to get rid of you.
And the Constitution actually articulates rights to due process, Fourth Amendment rights, representation of counsel, freedom of speech rights, all of these sorts of different things.
The question is, will the United States Senate decide to follow the U.S. Constitution or go through what is nothing more than kabuki feeder, going through something that is completely and totally fake, a baseless and sham impeachment.
The Senate is now beating the drums of impeachment.
The indications are they want to get this done over, signed, sealed, and delivered in three days or less.
There are traffic court disputes that take more than three days.
We're talking about impeaching a former president of the United States that I'm not exactly sure how this works.
I think the Supreme Court's going to review this, don't you, Isabel?
I think they absolutely should, Charlie.
There's a massive question pending before the American people here on whether or not it's even constitutionally protected to impeach and convict someone who's not currently in office.
They say civil officer, is that right?
Yeah, civil officer is the language used on whether or not someone can be impeached.
If you are a civil officer, you're eligible to be impeached.
But the legal definition for that word is so important.
It's any person who is appointed by the government and who holds current, present tense executive, legislative, or judicial authority.
Which is not a former president.
No.
And so it's very well that this could be an unconstitutional exercise.
However, the impeachment going only for three days with who knows what kind of due process and cross-examination of witnesses will be allowed.
We do not know who Trump's legal team will be.
My guess is that Alan Dershowitz will rejoin and he will receive even.
I think Alan Dershowitz just loves the fight.
He's a free speech guy, and I have a lot of respect for him in a lot of different ways.
My guess is he'll rejoin to defend the president against the idea of impeaching a president, not necessarily defending the president on the merits of the case, but just kind of indicting the idea, for lack of a term, indicting, the idea of impeachment.
I want to go through what their accusations will be.
And I want to go through kind of our own, you know, kind of pasted together response, if you will, of the defense of what can or what will President Trump do, former President Trump do, to defend himself against this?
Because the crux of the entire impeachment is that Donald Trump gave specific and total marching orders, and those marching orders were acted upon, and therefore he is guilty of incitement.
We find it to be a lot more complicated than that.
And I think we have been unpacking the specifics of what happened on January the 6th.
And even if you hate Donald Trump and you're listening to this and you're like, I'm sick of it.
I want him gone forever.
Do not use ultimate power and authority to implement your own personal bias and prejudice when the merits of the case are not there.
That is not what a justice system is for.
That is not what an impeachment process is for.
We are now, we are already seeing the widespread abuse, the blurring of the lines, and the breaking down of traditional constitutional norms with two impeachments in one year constituting 50% of all the impeachment ever had in the history of our beautiful country.
That, by the way, were promised before this individual was even sworn into office.
On January 20th, 2017, they told us they were going to impeach him.
The day he got sworn in, an hour after the case against impeaching Trump has already begun.
And even if you hate Trump, and even if you're watching this, and there's a lot of people that are mixed on this, that listen to us, and thank you for listening.
You should say, I refuse to allow a political deletion campaign to succeed using the highest constitutional measure of a check and balance given to us by the founding fathers and the framers for someone who is not even currently occupying the White House that he can never run again because I'm either afraid that he's going to run again or I think he's annoying or whatever it is.
Be very careful using that metaphorical loaded gun on the table because that sort of power against a political opponent you don't like could be again used against someone you might like in the future.
This is why we have elections.
This is why we have the capacity to even censor, censure, not censor, which is like a vote of disapproval.
Impeachment is the highest threshold the Founding Fathers gave us.
And the Democrats are quick to run into it instantaneously because he's just that bad, even though he's no longer in office.
Did you know that a third of Americans regularly suffer from nausea?
I don't like being nauseous.
Obviously, it's very uncomfortable.
You can't focus and it ruins an otherwise fun time.
That's why I'm excited about our new partner, Relief Band.
Relief Band is the number one FDA-cleared anti-nausea wristband that has been clinically proven to quickly relieve and effectively prevent nausea and vomiting associated with motion sickness, anxiety, migraine hangover, morning sickness, chemotherapy, and so much more.
This product is 100% drug-free, non-drowsy, and provides all natural relief with zero side effects.
How it works is Relief Band stimulates a nerve in the wrist that travels to the part of the brain that controls the nausea.
Relief Band is the only over-the-counter wearable device that has been used in hospitals and oncology clinics to treat nausea and vomiting.
A lot of people I know have used Relief Band.
It's something that I've heard great things about, quite honestly.
So check it out.
This year, ensure nausea is never the reason to miss out on important events.
Go to reliefband.com.
Use the promo code Kirk for 20% off.
R-E-L-I-E-F-B-A-N-D.com.
Use the promo code Kirk for 20% off.
And I can tell you, people really like it.
It's just for the Charlie Kirk show listeners.
ReliefBand.com, promo code Kirk.
Trump is about to be on trial, a Senate trial.
Now, will this trial around his impeachment is it constitutional?
We've explored this and we don't know.
It's supposed to be in the United States Constitution current office holders that have current power, not former office holders.
Now, there's an argument to be made, though, that I'm sure they'll make that they impeached him while he was in office, and now therefore they're completing the task of what he was in office.
I don't know about that argument.
I don't think that should really hold up.
Yeah.
But let's pretend that it's constitutional and it's proceeding.
The kind of baseline of the Democrat argument is the following: that there was an event in Washington, D.C. Donald Trump spoke to that event.
Based on his remarks, the people at that event then stormed the Capitol, committed acts of domestic terrorism, insurrection, and other types of crimes.
Now, more so than any other program, I believe we have factually gone through the footage and gone through exactly what we believe based on all publicly available information.
What the heck actually happened on January the 6th?
Now, some of you might be exhausted hearing about this.
Well, buckle up for at least another week because you're about to see whether or not your Constitution still exists or not based on the facts of this case.
It's that simple.
And so the information surrounding what happened on January the 6th, what President Trump said, what he didn't say, what he said correctly, what he said incorrectly, is incredibly important.
And we're going to shoot it to you guys straight here.
We're going to tell you what Donald Trump did correctly at that speech.
We're going to tell you something that I don't think he should have said and an impression that he gave to the people there that I think was a very big mistake.
We're going to go through all of that.
Now, does that mean that he should be impeached as a former office holder for it?
I do not think so, not even close.
So let's start with the one piece of information here.
Let me read to you from the Washington Post here.
I want to make sure I read this specifically in a second once I find it.
That this looks more and more like a pre-planned operation alongside some people that got very caught up in the moment.
There is an individual that was arrested a couple days ago on the first charge of conspiracy.
It's a very high threshold to be indicted on conspiracy.
He was part of the group of people that you saw the clip of on our program that were walking up the Capitol steps in full tactical military gear, holding each other's back, like kind of holding each other's neck collar, kind of being able to hold going towards the conflict.
And he has now been arrested on conspiracy.
So let's just go through the first and foremost facts of the case.
In fact, we have a tape of this.
So as you see here, if you just look at the guys in the helmets, those do not look like typical Make America Great Again rally attendees.
They are holding on to each other.
They are walking towards the Capitol building upwards.
You can see they're walking uphill, and they're almost in communication with each other.
They stand out from the entire crowd.
And so now, then you see another guy motioning, come on, guys, come on, guys.
Now's our chance.
Ridiculous.
And ridiculous, meaning like, what were they thinking?
And they're fools.
And so now I want to go back to the beginning of the clip, please, and just play this one more time and pause it a couple seconds in.
And so this clip right here is very important.
Pause if you can.
Thank you.
Do you guys see they have backpacks on?
What's the one thing we know about backpacks?
We unpacked this a bit last week, Charlie.
The backpack.
Backpacks.
Oh, that's good.
I didn't even mean to do that.
Backpacks are not allowed into any event that requires Secret Service security.
It's just not even within the realm of possibility.
So the most likely explanation for why there's backpacks there is that those individuals were not present at the ellipse to hear the president speak.
Bingo.
And we have no evidence to believe that they were.
Now, that's not to say everyone around them was not necessarily at the ellipse.
That's not to say that everyone around them might have also been at the ellipse.
However, we are all of a sudden adding a piece of information that is a little bit contrary to this overarching Democrat narrative, which is that there were people there that were in Washington, D.C. for the sole purpose of creating chaos, chaos, takeover.
I don't know what it is.
And prison time sounds like an appropriate measure for people that seek out our nation's capital for that intended purpose.
There's a timeline from the New York Times that's super helpful where they even admit some of the kind of tussle with the law enforcement began before the president's remarks even concluded.
In fact, according to Vice, The Atlantic, New York Times, and Washington Post, not exactly conservative outlets, right?
Crowds were gathering on the east side of the Capitol building well before the president even took the stage.
I want to play some tape.
Is this Vox or is this Vice?
I get them all confused, Vice.
And I mean, no offense, but I just get them out.
They're all liberal.
This is Vice.
Listen carefully.
This is a journalist who begins to prove the point that we're making, which is there's more to the story where he says people were leaving the rally before the president was even done speaking.
Play tape.
Before Trump's speech was even finished, many were already making their way to the Capitol.
Stop protecting pirates!
Stand down!
And as more protesters arrived, the mood darkness.
So that guy on the megaphone did not look like a typical MAGA guy.
And so you can kind of tell that some people were there for a conflict based on wearing goggles.
They had gas masks on, not exactly normal attire at a Trump rally.
And so the, and this is the New York Times timeline here, which is actually really, really helpful.
And so the narrative that they're going to put forward in this impeachment trial, and that's actually the picture I want to show.
There were massive crowds gathering at 11:50 a.m. on the east side of the Capitol.
That's two hours before the president's speech concluded.
And by the way, this does not get the president out of the woods yet.
I want to be very clear.
We're going to get into his remarks in a second.
What we are doing, though, and neither of us are defense lawyers, but we're going through this just using logical reasoning and facts, starting to contribute some other information to the narrative.
If you see in this image here, as it starts to get pulled up, you can see one of these gentlemen was just arrested on conspiracy.
The guy on the left who's screaming, who seems very excited with the walkie-talkie.
Okay, so here's just kind of MAGA rally 101 and take it from a guy who has planned these, attended these, and kind of knows a little bit about these, okay?
You don't dress like this when you go to a MAGA rally.
Now, what do you notice about this, Isabel?
What side are they on?
They're on the east side of the side, which is really hard to get to from the ellipse.
So, all of these guys, almost all of them, and some of them are doing symbols with their hands that would go to show us that let's just say that's those signs have been, I think, categorized by you don't do those signs at a Trump rally.
Let's just do it that way.
I don't have to get into that many more.
If you're wearing an orange hat like one of these gentlemen, and I don't know if he committed a crime that day, or maybe he just felt like dressing up like a commando.
I don't know.
But an orange hat with a green vest with gloves on, does that look like a guy that's all of a sudden going to try and go to a Trump rally?
The answer is no.
If you would go through that through a MAG at a secret service, they'd say, why are you dressed like that, sir?
In fact, they'd probably pull you aside.
In fact, they'd pull you aside and start asking you questions.
And so, just using general logic, these people on the east side of the Capitol, which is super important, which is disconnected from the ellipse in a lot of different ways, they were there to cause trouble.
They were there to either seek out trouble, be instigators, whatever you might call it.
And some of them have been arrested just for that.
The other thing is this, as this image is up, why the walkie-talkie?
Really?
Who goes to a Trump rally with a walkie-talkie?
This guy that's screaming in the bottom line.
There are several walkie-talkies now that I look closer, actually.
Probably bring walkie-talkies to communicate with each other outside of any sort of monitoring.
We're now going to put up a map from the New York Times that kind of shows in really good detail the point that we're trying to make.
So, thank you, New York Times.
And so, the Trump speech is on the left.
That is the west side of Washington, D.C.
Well, not West, but West for our own purposes here.
That is where the president gave a speech right near the White House.
Two miles away, you have the United States Capitol building, where you see on the right side of your image, you see three different arrows showing it with people marched and walked.
On the right side of the Capitol, it's cut off a little bit, but it says supporters already at the Capitol.
That was where we had the picture of the walkie-talkie man and the orange hat people that were there for, they weren't there to hear the president, they were there for something else.
And they were there to try to cause trouble.
They had walkie-talkies, they had military tactical gear, and they wanted to be able to communicate.
They wanted to be able to plan.
They wanted to be able to coordinate outside of maybe any interference, signals being jammed, or whatever.
Not everyone that went to the Trump speech went to the Capitol.
In fact, a small percentage did.
300,000 people went to President Trump's speech at the ellipse, and about 10,000 people got around the Capitol, like kind of around it.
And then a couple thousand people got up on the actual platform, and then about 500 people breached into the Capitol.
And that information is so important from a timing perspective, too, Charlie.
If you're watching this and you've never been to a large-scale demonstration or march in Washington, D.C., for hundreds of thousands of people to be jam-packed together downtown, that would take a very, very, very long time to march two miles from the ellipse to the United States Capitol.
It's completely unrealistic that instantly, as soon as the speech was over, all of those people would be there.
And so a guest on our program, Pastor Rick Brown, was in D.C. that day.
He went to the speech at the ellipse and he walked on the National Mall, never got near the Capitol, just got a weird feeling and walked away.
He's now being grouped into all the other people, you know, a terrific man of God, because he just happened to be in Washington, D.C. that day.
That's a first point that needs to be made.
Okay, so let's get to some of these clips here.
And then I want to get into also what President Trump said.
Was everything he said perfect?
I think he did say one thing in his speech that was a mistake.
And I'll just say it bluntly.
There are two things in his speech that I think was a mistake.
One that I think had more of a mistake.
Do I think it's impeachable?
No, I do not.
But we're just going to shoot it to you straight.
Okay.
So let's go to some of this, some of these clips here.
We got a lot of clips, as you well know.
We did get a question right here, and maybe Isabel, you can help answer it: freedom at charliekirk.com.
Has the pink hat lady been arrested yet?
Not to my knowledge.
I don't know that they have found Pink Hat Lady.
We went into great detail of Pink Hat Lady the other day on this program, but she's definitely a key player in the events that unfolded on January 6th, and I'm hopeful that she'll be arrested.
So, Isabel, can you call us some clips here?
I'm trying to get to the same list that you're on here.
Yeah, so guys, I want to break down for you just the enormity of how many different situations were taking place at the Capitol on January 6th.
It was chaos.
Chaos.
So many moving parts, different groups, different individuals.
There's been some key players that have risen to the top, one of which being John Sullivan, who amazingly was interviewed on CNN the night of January 6th for taking the video footage of Ashley Babbitt being shot in the United States Capitol building.
We have a couple clips talking about John Sullivan's role really within the events that unfolded on January 6th.
But before that, even he was a leader of an organization called Insurgents USA and in Washington, D.C., loves talking about how much it's time for revolution.
We've got clip 109 ready to show you guys, and it really just speaks to his intentions here in Washington, D.C. Play tape.
Formed against our group.
We out there strapped.
We out there ready to burn that down.
We out there to defend ourselves.
We got to rip Trump out of that office right over there, and pull him out that shit.
Nah, nah, we ain't about waiting until the next election.
We're about to go get that motherfucker.
I ain't about that.
Because you know what time it is?
I want y'all to be after me.
It's time for a revolution.
So he has been arrested.
He's actually out on bail.
And he was arrested for going into the Capitol and I believe for unlawful entry.
And there was some, I want to be specific on his indictment, but he's a BLM guy, professional agitator that dressed and disguised himself as a Trump supporter.
So that starts to question the narrative a little bit.
So not everyone there was at the ellipse, and not everyone there is even a supporter of the president.
He's calling for the president to get pulled out of the White House.
Correct.
He's calling for Trump to get pulled out of the White House and he was also in the Capitol.
So that changes the narrative a little bit.
You may not know this about me, but I'm kind of an undercover.
Some people would call it a nerd when it comes to studying the global economy.
I love seeking out financial wisdom.
When it comes to my own portfolio, I always 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 United States-based company.
Supporting American businesses is so incredibly 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 on your budget.
That's noblegoldinvestments.com.
Here's the basic kind of framing we want to present here: which is: was this mostly a premeditated event?
Or was this mostly a spontaneous incited event?
Now, it's actually not either or.
It's not because there's evidence to show that there's a little bit, there's both.
However, the evidence is more and more pointing in the direction that the people that were leading this, that were actually in the Capitol, and that were penetrating the Capitol from within, including Pink Hat Lady, had schematics, architecture, design, and an idea of exactly what was going to happen.
And look, we're going to shoot it to you straight.
BLM Incorporated, that guy was involved, John Sullivan.
There were also Trump supporters that were involved that got caught up in this, some of which regret their actions, others that do not regret their actions.
I think they will eventually.
So the question is, as we go into these clips here, which is really important, and I hope some of these clips are played during the Senate impeachment trial.
That's what I'm saying.
Because the Senate is the jury, right?
Correct.
And so the House is the prosecution, and then Trump has to have some sort of defense.
And so John Sullivan cut 115, where it is showing him disguising himself in a Trump hat.
That's him on the right.
That's his mugshot.
And that's him wearing his Trump hat.
There's also been Discord chats released showing that he was bragging that he was infiltrating.
And this was precisely what we were concerned about as the events of January 6th were unfolding and we were sitting here in real time breaking down the information.
We said, just because you're wearing a red MAGA hat or a hat that says someone's name on it does not mean you have support for that individual.
So I'm interested to see if more of these stories come out.
Totally.
And so this one is probably one of the most interesting clips that I think we have where it shows that there is instructions being given and the people that were really doing the heavy lifting here are not dressed like Trump supporters.
They have backpacks and it looks like they were trying to infiltrate the United States government.
Let's play tape and keep the mic on, please.
So we're going to roll it muted just because there's some bad words that have been said here.
So here's a group of people inside the U.S. Capitol looking like they're regrouping.
It looks like a mixed group of people.
It looks like could be legitimate Trump supporters and people that hadn't gotten near the Trump speech within a mile the whole day, right?
Right.
You're seeing gas masks and backpacks.
That woman looks like she might be a legitimate Trump supporter.
That guy with the gas mask, you're not allowed into a MAGA rally with a gas mask.
No way were they at the MAGA rally, right?
And so I'm calling the MAGA rally with the Trump rally that he spoke at, right?
And so then this pink hat woman starts screaming through the window here, staying, and I'm paraphrasing, hey, I know this building.
If you want to take this building, go to this other window.
And by the way, this woman has yet to be arrested.
Correct.
And actually, she ended up saying in here, I've been in the room that you're standing in before.
There's a door to your left and a door to the back.
And if you go through this window, you can get to a lower level.
And she's pointing.
And so you see kind of the best way to put this is absolute chaos.
It is not organized chaos.
This is what she was saying.
Hey, guys, I've been in the other room.
Listen to me.
In the other room on the other side of this door right here is where people are standing.
There's glass that if it's broken, you can drop down to a room underneath it.
There's also two doors in the other room.
There's one in the rear and one right when you go in.
So we should probably coordinate together if we're going to take this building.
We're in when we got a window to break to make it easy getting in and out.
And this window here needs to be broken.
Great job, Connor, on that.
Now, this guy is a leader.
This guy does not look like he just went to the Trump rally.
He has a gas mask.
He gets filmed.
I don't know if he's been arrested or not.
Oh, puts on his gas mask.
He's afraid he might get arrested, which he probably will.
Yep.
Okay.
He's a ringleader.
He does not look like someone who is here to go protest the election results.
He looks like a guy who's trying to thwart the overthrow of the government.
Now, let's just go back to some commentary here.
Now, we're going to go through on Monday, piece by piece, of all the different pieces of evidence here that show that there were people that were here with nefarious intentions beforehand.
However, that does not get Trump completely cleared.
Remember, now that the House has passed the Articles of Impeachment, the way this works is if he has been quote unquote indicted.
Does that make sense?
So the House is the indictment.
This is not a perfect way to put it, but it's the best way.
Like the House is the indictment.
The Senate is the conviction or not.
And something important to remember, too, is that this impeachment in the House went through in two hours before any of these news outlets and media outlets were remotely reporting on the timeline or the map that we just walked through with you guys.
The House is like a grand jury.
That's a good way to put it.
Connor just emailed that to us.
So the House decides whether or not we're going to impeach/slash indict.
The Senate then holds the trial.
Okay.
So the entire argument is going to be whether or not President, all this, all this footage is helpful.
It really is for President Trump's case and for those of us that actually care about what happened here.
But it doesn't get Trump out of the woods yet because they're just going to play the same tapes over and over again.
And so let's go through it.
Let's go through what President Trump said.
And I think we have some of the clips here at the bottom of the other feed.
If not, I can just read some of these words here.
So let me read what I think was a mistake with what he said.
Let me say one thing.
I think that, okay, let's go to cut 134 first and then 135 and we'll dissect it.
Let's go to cut 134.
But I said something's wrong here.
Something's really wrong.
Can't have happened.
And we fight.
We fight like hell.
And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
Now, I don't actually think this is the worst.
I think that fight in politics is metaphorical.
I don't think that this is worthy of the outrage that it has received.
I don't.
Do you agree, Isabel?
Everyone says we're going to fight for healthcare, the Biden fight fund, fight to repeal this, fight for this.
That is precisely correct.
Fight has always been a poetic term in politics to speak for standing up for something.
Everyone knows it.
Okay.
That's a cheap argument.
But let me tell you where I think that his greatest vulnerability is where he made his mistake.
Okay.
It's this: quote, it's two things, actually.
So now it's up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy.
After this, we're going to walk down and I'll be there with you.
This was a mistake.
Telling people that you were going to walk down with them to the Capitol gave them the impression that this was blessed by you, and then any of the activity was like you're overseeing this.
It gave a bad impression.
We're going to walk down.
We're going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.
That's fine.
That part's good.
That part actually might clear it up.
But the mistake is that it built up the crowd on top of the agitators that were already there because people thought they were going to walk alongside their president to the Capitol.
Correct.
In fact, a lot of people said that.
Let's play cut 135.
Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy.
And after this, we're going to walk down and I'll be there with you.
We're going to walk down.
We're going to walk down anyone you want.
But I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol.
And we're going to cheer on our 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 our country with weakness.
You have to show strength and you have to be strong.
So that part, weakness, strength, I think they're reading way too much into it.
I do.
However, he might have met it metaphorically.
I'm going to be right there with you.
He didn't say it metaphorically and everyone cheered and they could tell that he could probably tell in real time that people thought he was going to ride a motorcade and they were going to march down to the Capitol together and he was going to give a speech there.
So what did that do?
Is it overbuilt the crowd on the Capitol?
It raised the temperature.
People were like, Trump is here.
Trump wants me to be here.
And he said it explicitly.
I don't think the worst part of that statement, quite honestly, is you have to show strength.
You have to be strong.
That's political talk, okay?
The fighting, the strength, the weakness, whatever.
I think the greatest vulnerability is that he did tell his supporters to go to the Capitol.
Now, do I think that's impeachable?
No.
Do I think that's incitement?
No.
Do I think that was responsible?
Probably not.
When they all of a sudden, your Trump, your supporters who will do anything for you, they're like, this isn't, I came to D.C., I traveled.
I get to march alongside the president?
You don't do that.
That's my opinion.
And I say that as a friend and as a supporter of the president.
To push back on that slightly too, though, Charlie, it is difficult to say what the intention behind those words is.
Obviously, the way it was delivered was probably taken in literally by many of the people there at the Capitol and in Washington, D.C.
But the reality is I've heard Trump say, I'll be there with you.
I'm with you.
I am always with you.
I support you.
I have your back.
That's a great question.
Over and over and over again throughout his presidency.
So it's not the first time I've heard him use that language.
Totally.
And the only counter to that where it made it different is he was standing in front of them and he's like, I'll be there with you.
He said it three times, right?
And so it left it too open for interpretation.
Correct.
Right.
And so let me tell you the other part here.
And this is the other one.
He said, so we're going to walk.
We're going to.
We're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
I love Pennsylvania Avenue.
And we're going to the Capitol and we're going to try and give the Democrats are hopeless.
They're never voting for anything, not even one vote.
But we're going to try and give our Republicans the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help.
We're going to give them, try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
Okay, so again, he's saying that we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
I love that.
That's like a four or five times.
So don't be surprised when all of a sudden the 300,000 crowd, like 30,000 of them, all of a sudden show up there, right?
Now, but in President Trump's defense, he said you have to do it patriotically and peacefully.
This is the part that the media and the defense team will never show.
So let's play that tape.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
So that's patriotic and peacefully, right?
So he is telling people to go to the Capitol.
But here's the one thing I don't think the president knew.
And this might have been a failure of the intelligence agency.
Maybe he was briefed on it.
Here's the biggest problem is that I don't think the president knew he was telling his supporters to go walk into an attempted militia gathering to go penetrate the U.S. Capitol.
That is so important.
And we went through a CNN article a few days ago that said by Wednesday morning, before the president ever even departed to give the speech, the FBI had received over 126,000 tips that something nefarious was going to happen at the Capitol.
And so maybe the president knew, maybe he didn't.
That's actually going to be the crux of the entire Senate impeachment trial.
Was President Trump briefed on what was happening at the Capitol?
Because the regular citizens didn't know.
The regular public, you know, always hear things happening in D.C., people are there, like whatever.
Things are shut down.
And if he wasn't briefed, why wasn't he briefed?
That's another really important question that should come up.
That's the whole idea of cross-examination of witnesses, due process, discovery, not these three-day trials that happen.
So it's all going to come down to, because all this other language is just metaphorical nonsense.
Did President Trump knowingly tell his supporters to go into what intelligence agencies already knew was going to be a mess?
In our fast-paced world, it's tough to make reading a priority.
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 is the way that I am able to distill a lot of information quickly.
It's important to take a break from mindless social media scrolling and learn something.
If you want to challenge your preconceptions, expand your horizons and become a better thinker, go to thi Nkr.org to start a free trial today.
So the entire Senate circus that's about to happen is going to really be around if it's actually a trial and not just an up or down vote on the merits of impeachment, whether or not impeachment should be happening or not.
It's really going to be around: did President Trump briefed on whether or not there was nonsense happening in the Capitol or not beforehand?
Because there were people gathering, there were intelligence reports, FBI was briefed.
And if he wasn't briefed, why wasn't he briefed?
And that's a whole different set of questions that need to be asked.
However, to give some defense to the president here, who would have thought that just telling your supporters to go peacefully and patriotically go to the Capitol and they, oh, you have to show strength and fight.
None of that stuff resonates with me.
Okay.
I live in the political world.
Everyone uses this sort of language all the time, right?
We talk about a culture war, fight for your values.
That stuff is way over-policing of speech.
Where I said that the president does have a vulnerability here, though, is the seven mentions of saying, I'm going to walk alongside of you to the Capitol.
And I don't believe the president knew what he was sending his supporters into.
I don't.
He has no track record of that whatsoever because little did he know he was sending them into something that was way different than anything we've seen in Washington, D.C. for decades, which was based on all publicly available reports, arrests, and footage that we have been reviewing that we're going to go through and get some of those clips, Isabelle, just some of the stuff that shows suspicious behavior.
What was happening in D.C. was hundreds of people that were in tactical gear, gas masks, walkie-talkies, that were instigators and agitators that were there before the president's speech, that were there before the president finished speaking, that all of a sudden were given tens of thousands of new bodies behind them where they're agitating and they're instigating,
was all of a sudden given either a little push or a little bit of more of an appearance that they're really bigger than they really are.
And we talked about this before, but there is a psychology to crowds.
The bigger a crowd gets, it's called crowd psychology.
And I'm going to do a whole podcast on this next week.
And this is important for everyone to learn, especially when you're in big crowds, if you're in airplanes, if you're in tight, there's no joke here.
If you're in subways, if you're at a baseball stadium, a football stadium, it's called mob psychology.
And it's a branch of social psychology.
And crowd behavior can be heavily influenced by the loss of responsibility, the individual, and the impression of the universality of behavior.
And I'm reading from just a description here online, both of which increase with the crowd size.
So the larger the crowd, the more that there are agitators that know how to get up a crowd, paired with the idea of mob psychology, all of a sudden you're going to have Joe Smith, like one of those guys that was there from Tennessee that just got arrested, either Tennessee or Kentucky.
And he says, I just made the biggest mistake of my life.
I don't know what I was thinking.
Well, you weren't because you allowed yourself to all of a sudden a mob psychology took over, right?
Now, he was the one that was, he was at the president's speech.
He looks and appears.
I don't know his name.
I could look it up.
There's a couple people there that have gotten arrested like this.
And every single one of these cases is different, right?
But he was someone that heard the president's speech.
He was someone that thought the president was going to be marching alongside of him.
And he goes in and he goes into this kind of mob there.
Now, is it the president's fault, though?
No.
Absolutely not.
And Shapiro, not Ben Shapiro, that guy that used to run the Washington Attorney General's office wrote this piece, and he got a lot of pushback for it saying, I have prosecuted incitement.
This is not incitement.
And Trump's lawyers need to say, this was two miles away.
Never did he care for, never did he call for domestic terrorism.
Any of the language that you're cherry-picking is around metaphorical political language.
The best argument that the prosecution has is: was President Trump briefed?
And if he was, why did he mobilize his people into a dangerous situation?
And I'm not one to try to make an argument for Democrats, but that's the only argument they have.
And on the flip side, the best argument for the defense was we had absolutely no idea this was going to be taking place.
Which I believe.
We used metaphorical political language that everyone has used in all of human history, and there was no intention to commit domestic terrorism.
Absolutely not.
And in fact, the president came out and spoke out against it.
And there's no track record at all whatsoever of President Trump and any one of his rallies ever having this pattern of behavior.
And another thing they might try to cherry pick, which, you know, he shouldn't have probably tweeted out, which probably brought a lot of these people in, is like, we're going to have a wild protest.
I mean, all right, again, I think that's a little bit too much of kind of the word stretching.
Right.
But I don't like the prosecution of heavily charged political language.
And here's the question.
And I would love to have Alan Derschwitz on the podcast.
And look, let's just go through these facts.
Okay.
Impeachment was never designed by the framers as a venting mechanism.
It's supposed to be, it's not supposed to be like a parliamentary vote of no confidence.
The House has set a terrible precedent.
The House committed constitutional malpractice.
It's that simple.
There's an article on the Federalist here that says, I saw provocateurs at the Capitol riot on January the 6th.
Number one, plain clothed, plain clothes militants, militants, aggressive men in Donald Trump and MAGA gear at the front of police lines that were out of character.
Agent provocateurs, scatter groups of men exhorting the marchers to gather closely and tightly together towards the center.
Fake Trump protesters, a few young men wearing Trump or MAGA hats backwards who did not fit in.
A disciplined, uniformed column of attackers.
This is an article by Michael Waller, published on the 14th of January at the Federalist.
So let's get into some more of this footage here, and I think it's really important to play.
Let's go to cut 127 here of CNN's Jade Sacker.
Let's turn this volume off on this, please, because I think there's some bad words.
Coordinating with now arrested John Sullivan.
Wait, just look how they're just walking in.
Cut 127, walking straight into the Capitol rotunda.
Now, some of the arguments people are making is, oh, it was all peaceful inside.
Okay, look, you should know better than to walk into the United States Capitol after breaking a barricade and breaking police.
That defense is not going to stand up in court at all.
Right.
And so I think he shows Sullivan here.
They walk through the rotunda here.
I want to go to this one here, cut 17.
This is really strange.
Let's play cut 17.
And I'll narrate it.
In slow motion, this looks like baseball bats being passed through a window at the Capitol from the Capitol to the rioters.
Look, somebody comes out and is handing them either baseball bats.
Look at that.
They're handing them weapons.
Who is that?
That is a window at the United States Capitol where they are handing out weapons to rioters.
That looks remarkably similar to the window Pink Hat Lady helped to break that day.
Yet Pink Hat Lady remains at large, everybody.
Pink Hat Lady, I think, is going to answer a lot of questions to a lot of this, as we pinpointed very early on.
She remains.
I don't even know if there's a warrant out for her arrest yet because I don't even know if they know who she is.
I don't know, yeah.
Usually once they identify, they'll be able to figure that out.
Here's one here from Sydney.
Charlie, in the way you construct, construe the president's words after the fact, I can see how they can be taken incorrectly.
But I, as a reasonable, logical, and thoughtful person, did not and do not hear any encouragement to do anything other than go to the Capitol and support the cause peacefully and with moral strength.
I guess what I didn't think about is a lot of people were not logical and reasonable.
And so I agree with you, Sidney.
It's a great email.
I never actually inferred that he incited violence.
And so what I said is he did promote mobilization into something that he, I don't think he knew, was already a brewing instigating scene, right?
Right.
President Trump, intentionally or unintentionally, and I think unintentionally, because there's no evidence whatsoever to say intentionally, supported the mobilization of his supporters into a perfect storm of chaos that was already underway with walkie-talkie zip tie shaman people that were trying to take over the Capitol.
And that intention piece is very important too.
If you don't have a background in law, intention is a big piece when it comes to conviction of a crime.
In many situations, if you don't have intent to commit the crime, you can't be held liable for that crime.
That's where you see differentiations of murder versus manslaughter charges, for example.
Of course, I don't believe the United States Congress is actually going to care about the president's intentions one way or another.
They're just going to care that chaos to me.
Intention matters a lot.
And if you unintentionally are involved in something, you could still be criminally liable.
However, technically, if you are unintentional, and you could prove intention, right?
A great example.
Manslaughter is a perfect example of this, right?
And just to use a tragic example, someone's driving down the street and they accidentally run over somebody and that person dies.
Now, there'll be a huge investigation.
Were they texting?
Were they under the influence?
But they might find that they just might have got distracted or whatever and it was completely unintentional.
Or they get in a car accident and someone passes away.
That's probably even a better example, right?
They probably will not go to jail for first degree, second degree, or third degree murder, but they might go to jail for manslaughter, which is a much lower threshold, right?
Meaning in the threshold, not threshold, less prison time.
Right.
And I think...
It's a completely different conviction.
It's a completely different conviction, right?
And so intention is supposed to matter a lot.
Now, where the lines are blurred a lot is that intention has mattered a lot less lately.
Right.
Because, and so that's why the arrests are happening So quickly because some people are like, well, I didn't have the intention to go into the Capitol.
You did, okay?
So you did do unlawful entry.
Now, what's going to happen is that you're going to see some of these people that were arrested for just kind of a class A misdemeanor or a felony.
I think they're all felonies, actually.
I could say unlawful entry.
You're going to see people all of a sudden get dropped with like 50 more indictments where they're going to get like conspiracy, sedition, like domestic terrorism.
And why?
How are they able to do that?
Well, through text messages, interviewing of witnesses, they're going to find out that Zip Tie Man or the MASH Man or the Shaman Man, they had the intention that day that they didn't get caught up in some sort of spontaneous mob that they were like, no, no, no, I'm here today to go take ground from the government.
And intention should matter to Congress when it comes to the exact language of their articles of impeachment.
That's exactly right.
They were filed to say that the president is guilty, theoretically, of incitement.
Incitement is a very specific word in the legal community.
And you mentioned Shapiro, who's phenomenal.
Yeah, so this individual was the assistant attorney general of D.C. for a very long time in the early 2000s.
He wrote a great opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal on January 10th saying, no, Trump is not guilty of incitement.
He did inflame emotions, but that's not a crime.
And the president did not once mention violence, much less provoke it.
When you break this down from a legal perspective and gather all of the evidence, which we've been doing for several weeks now, Charlie, the word incitement is completely irrelevant to what happened with the president's involvement on January 6th.
According to Shapiro, in order for incitement to happen, you have to have the intention to want, like, so what you're saying didn't have an unintended consequence, right?
Correct.
You have to say, I said these words to have a desired impact.
Is that correct?
I'm hoping to provide violence as a direct consequence of my words.
Yes.
Which there's no way they'll be able to prove that.
The only way they could prove that, the only way is if there was evidence that members of the FBI and the intelligence community came to President Trump and they said, there's some really bad stuff that's heating up.
We are getting, because there's public reports that are saying this, right?
After the fact, but we are getting intelligence reports, Mr. President, that there are domestic people that are up to no good that are going to be in and around the Capitol.
Right.
The only way they could make that case is if President Trump internalized that.
But even that case would be hard because the defense would be, no, no, no, no.
He was still telling these people to go patriotically and peacefully, not thinking they would be near these people.
And he didn't have any sort of inside details.
It's a hard case to build out.
That would be a very difficult argument for any prosecution in a court of law.
So the point is that this impeachment is nothing more than a revenge campaign.
Correct.
After everything we've been through.
And again, you can say, as I have said, that he should not have said seven times he was going to march alongside his supporters.
Okay.
Right.
And he knew that he knew what was going to happen there.
You would have tens of thousands of people march to the Capitol.
I think that President Trump was believing, again, he had no rally experience where anything he tells his audience to do results in anything but peaceful.
Correct.
I think that's all he's never experienced.
I think that's a really good argument, too, for his defense, which is where is another Trump rally where all of a sudden all the Trump people become, you know, militarized?
It doesn't happen.
And there's certainly not a shortage of other events to compare this to.
I've seen so many over the last two years.
Context is super important for the defense, right?
So the context will say it's not as if President Trump has this long track record of his rallies going awry, right?
It's not as if he was surprised everyone else, as anyone else was.
And so the other piece of that is if his, which is defense should reinforce, which is what President Trump thought his call to action would result in.
Right.
And that's where the defense, again, if we had a real trial in the Senate, this would end up happening where he would have witnesses that would come and testify on his behalf, bodymen, aides, and they'd say they'd testify under oath.
Yes, in my private conversations with the president, he was hoping that a peaceful group of people would assemble on the Washington Mall to be able to peacefully applaud certain lawmakers for what they were doing at the election results.
And that's still a call to action, but it's not a call for incitement of violence.
But that's our defense, right?
So where President Trump would have a vulnerability is if one of those aides said the opposite.
Correct.
Which there's no evidence to show that, right?
But that's why you have a trial, okay?
This is why we have a justice system, not some sort of kangaroo court, just we're going to impeach instantaneously.
All these questions are super important to be able to define attention, burden of proof, and yes, guilt.
Yeah.
And these are the questions that need to be asked in the next few days, especially from members of Congress.
But based on the evidentiary support, sorry, that we have right in front of us right now, there's no justification for any sort of conviction for incitement, insurrection, or anything that Congress is saying the president did.
I think Jeffrey Shapiro really sums this up so well at the end of his opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.
I really encourage you guys to read this.
He says, 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.
And therefore, his speech is protected by the Constitution that members of Congress are sworn to support and defend.
And the other aspect of this is, and this is where I think that we as conservatives should stake our biggest fight in this impeachment of the details, is this nonsense around strength and weakness and fight.
That stuff drives me nuts, everybody.
Politically charged language has become the new normal in America.
Yeah.
And if we're going to start prosecuting and indicting people based on saying, I'm going to go fight to go, you know, repeal the Second Amendment, which I don't agree with, but I don't think someone should get indicted for saying that.
Right.
If that's the case, Planned Parenthood should be indicted for fighting for abortion.
And every politician ever should have been.
Or Maxine Waters should have been indicted for incitement for go get in their face or Eric Holder.
When they're down, we kick them.
Now, they should come under criticism for that.
I don't even think President Trump was near the place near criticism.
He was using language he's always used.
But the only reason this is an issue is because that there was the spillover at the Capitol, which again, there are three different types of people that were there at the Capitol.
They were mainstream Trump supporters that got involved in something that they really didn't understand.
And I think they made a really big mistake.
And a lot of them regret that.
Professional agitators and instigators that just go anywhere they possibly can to cause a fight and a ruckus.
And then people that call themselves Trump supporters that are right-wing identitarians that are not part of any movement that you and I are part of, that are part of militia or whatever that sort of, all those kind of mashed together, kind of, and where were the most amount of people?
That's the most important thing, right?
So there was only a couple hundred of the militia type people, only probably a couple dozen of the instigators and 15,000 of the Trump supporters.
Right.
But if you look at the actual people who went into Capitol, the people that were breaking the windows, the people that were penetrating it, the actual audience you're dealing with, which is like 500 to 600 people based on public reports, you're dealing with a group of people that is, as a percentage basis, a lot of the instigator type, you know, of instigators slash militant type.
Right.
And if this was a thorough investigation, which I hope that it will be, that's not to say that this won't happen.
And I very sincerely hope the Senate will commit a very, very thorough investigation of everything that happened on January 6th.
You would see a clear differentiation between a crime of passion and a premeditated crime.
And those violent, crazy groups that love to worship chaos that incite chaos all day, every day, that we've been very clear to denounce, clearly had premeditated intentions and had knowledge of the layout of the building and had means to do so with flagpoles or baseball bats or whatever was being passed through the window to carry out their intended crime.
Whereas a crime of passion in a court of law is considered a different thing entirely.
It's in which the perpetrator commits the act against someone because of a sudden, strong impulse, such as sudden rage.
That is what they're trying to paint everything on January 6th, 2020.
That's so true.
But that is not the reality of what's occurring.
Well, and interestingly, a crime of passion, if a defense attorney argues it correctly, has a lower threshold of punishment than a premeditated crime.
Is that correct?
Correct.
And it goes back to that mob psychology almost that we were talking about that in certain situations, because of human nature, people act differently than who they truly are and what their intentions are, which is why intention, again, is so important in criminal court.
And that's why some of these people that were in there that are now having all of their communications examined because they were arrested and their devices were surrendered, they're going to have a lot more charges slapped onto them, a lot of these people, because they're going to find text messages, and they already have.
As they should.
Yeah.
I mean, and by the way, that's exactly right.
But the more indictments like that, it actually delegitimizes the impeachment.
Correct.
But it all, but it's kind of this weird thing.
The more indictments like that, it delegitimizes the impeachment, but it strengthens their case for a domestic Patriot Act.
Interestingly, that is true.
It's like their case for impeachment and their case for a domestic Patriot Act are inversely related.
Correct.
It's as if, was it a massive crime of passion or was it this premeditated thing that needs more sort of surveillance to try to prevent?
I'm anxious to see how people are going to be able to do it.
No, but they can't quite get their narratives right because, and here's the truth.
It's actually a mixture of both.
Yeah.
And the truth is that you had tens of thousands of people arriving with professional instigators and militia people that were primarily penetrating the top of it, which with accompanied by thousands of people that had been taken over by the psychology of the mob.
And by the way, people that are involved in BLM stuff, they all come under the same psychology of the mob.
And by the way, that's not a defense in the court of law.
No, it's not.
You can't go in front of a judge and be like, you know what?
I kind of lost my identity because of the crowd.
Now, a good defense attorney, though, can argue to a judge or a jury that they're being over-prosecuted and saying, hold on a second, after examination of all these sorts, I mean, you're going to see this with some of these people that have been arrested that went into the Capitol and didn't destroy anything, right?
And they're going to say, my client obviously made a terrible mistake.
You know, my client regrets what they did, but they got caught up in the moment.
And there's no like multi-year pattern of behavior that their intention was trying to destroy, you know, the United States system of government.
Which typically speaks to how the jury would sentence those people, too, and what the specific punishment of their crime might be.
Which this is where, again, we're getting too into the weeds here in some ways, but it's actually helpful.
Where, you know, do you plea and then do you try to say I was overcharged with, you know, or which charges do you fight?
Right.
Email us your questions in real time.
Freedom at charliekirk.com, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Here's one right here.
Hey, Charlie, did they ever find the pink hat lady?
Not specifically.
The person next to Bernie Sanders is wearing a pink hat.
It is true, but I don't think that I think there's more than one person with a pink hat.
And that is true.
Okay.
So this is a good question.
Any word yet on the Boogaloo boy, Mr. Dunn, who we covered?
I don't think he's been arrested yet.
I haven't heard any updated news from that specific group, although we did walk through that in a previous episode this week or last.
I really encourage you guys to go check that out.
Yeah, and so nothing yet.
Hey, Charlie and Isabel, love the show, just stumbled upon it.
You become my go-to information for news.
Thank you.
As for Pink Cat Lady, I can't wait to see her actually indicted.
I'm telling you, she is the gatekeeper of this whole thing.
There's something not the way she, her language, there's something not right there.
If you really logically deduct her diction, which means word choice, and her sentence construction, there was a calmness to how she was talking, right?
Can we put up that violence at the Capitol?
So there is a wanted poster for her.
There is from the FBI.
There's something.
She needs the public's assistance.
And I'm just going to say this right now.
She doesn't strike me as how someone would dress to a Trump rally.
No, not even in the slightest.
Now, I'm not saying that she's not a Trump supporter.
I'm just saying she doesn't strike me as someone of how they would dress at a Trump rally.
Okay, can we get that picture up there, Connor, please?
If anyone knows who Pink Cat Woman is, I'm telling you, there's something there.
And it leads to something behind it because she was calling shots.
She was breaking down windows.
She said she had a schematic.
She said she'd been there before, right, Isabel?
Right.
There were a lot of theories coming out on the internet afterwards that maybe she worked at the U.S. Capitol in some capacity.
Maybe she was a staffer.
That remains to be seen, obviously.
But to have such a detailed knowledge of the building is surprising to me.
Now, that looks on the left.
It looks to be a picture of her without the sunglasses on.
Is that right?
Looks like it to me.
That's a big development.
That's a big development.
That's the first picture of her without sunglasses on.
And so some of you are asking, Charlie, why are you so focused on her?
I think it's actually really important.
Based on all the footage that we have of her and all the things she was doing and all the things she was saying, there is nothing that goes to show that what she was doing was a spontaneous act.
Would you agree?
Absolutely.
That's all I'm saying.
Her actions and words scream premeditation.
And authority figures.
Authority figure.
And also, she doesn't strike me as a militia member.
And that's just me kind of stereotyping, but usually Melissa members don't have designer shades and pink hats on.
Usually it's walkie-talkie, zip ties, and tactical gear.
Correct.
So, and this is a good point.
Connor says, for context, most of the other FBI people have multiple images of multiple people.
She gets her own wanted poster from the FBI.
So we'll see what happens there.
Email us your questions, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Let's see what's here.
Hi, Charlie.
Love the show.
Watch it all the time.
Is Trump really going to start his own political party?
That would be so awesome.
Love the enthusiasm.
And thank you, Faith.
You email us often.
We appreciate it.
God bless you.
Not as convinced that a third party would be good for the country, though.
I think it would split our forces.
Yeah, I would agree with that wholeheartedly, especially because even with the ideological divide starting to rise to the top on the left side of the aisle, I think they understand that a specific delineation between the two factions within the Democrat Party would actually harm their ability to stay in power.
So I don't think we would see them.
Jillian asks us, asked us, what is the best way to try and explain to others what happened to the Capitol?
I think this link or any of the other links, I think we've been the most fair on this and quite honestly, like not really partisan, just kind of telling you exactly what has happened.
We're just looking for facts like anybody else should.
Yeah, and there's really not a narrative I'm trying to confirm.
I'm just trying to push back against pre-existing dogmatic narratives where people are trying to grab power for no other reason than that.
So this episode, I think, is a good one to send around to some of your friends.
Check it out.
Also, if any of you guys have Telegram, follow me on Telegram.
We have 203,000 subscribers on Telegram.
And actually, I'm sorry, 204,000.
We just added 1,000 right now.
And if you guys download Telegram, it's Charlie Kirk, the verified one.
The link is, let me see here, t.me slash Charlie Kirk.
So check that out and turn on notifications if you can.
That's the one place they're never going to be able to censor us.
Telegram is going to be one of the last lines of defense.
So please check it out if you guys can.
And we have some exclusive Telegram-only content that we put on there that goes nowhere else.
And so, if you're like, I want to get the news and the insight, go to tell t.me/slash CharlieKirk.
And that is an uncensorable platform.
Correct.
There's been some really great footage on there for you guys, links to all of Charlie's social media.
I would really encourage you to sign up.
So, email us your questions, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Here is someone that says, Thank you for believing.
I believe that is God, it is that God is going to make himself known in the very new future.
Amen.
Thank you for keeping us in check and focused.
It goes on from there.
Thank you, Lori.
And look, we're going to continue to be of good cheer and positivity and optimism.
We still live in a beautiful country.
And for now, we can continue to talk.
And as long as you can speak, you are free.
That is the definition of freedom.
Let's get to some more questions here: freedom at charliekirk.com.
You guys can always email us in real time.
Let's see here.
Question: Have you seen the videos of the police officers opening the doors and stopping the violence to any members of Congress?
I think we have that video, don't we, Connor?
We can play the video of them opening the doors.
Yeah, I think it's super important.
This is just something that Trump's defense team should bring up and say, Hey, do we have a do we have any idea why the doors were wide open at the Capitol?
Let's play tape of that, please.
So, here the doors were just peacefully opened.
Not peacefully, that's not the right way to put it.
They were opened without opposition because they're still going to get arrested for unlawful entry.
But honestly, if you're a defense lawyer and this is one of your clients, they're like, the police let them in, right?
And who knows where that order came from?
That's difficult, if not impossible, to say at this point.
And these police officers are not.
Now, these police officers should be telling them, You are breaking the law.
You are breaking the law.
Instead, again, they're going to claim that they didn't know.
It's not going to work for a lot of these guys, unfortunately.
I shouldn't, unfortunately or unfortunately, it's just not going to work for a lot of these guys because I didn't mean to say it that way.
It's not going to work for them in the sense that they still broke the law.
And there's video footage of them just standing there shaking their heads.
I mean, the police should have been doing something, right?
I mean, give me a break.
The police should have been doing something.
Okay, email us your questions, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Let's go here.
What books do you recommend?
Charlie and Isabel?
Oof, lots of books.
Right now, I would highly recommend George Orwell's 1984.
It's actually the number one bestseller on Amazon right now, I think, which is very fitting to the times that we're living in, but very prophetic and powerful words in that book.
Amen.
I recommend the Gulag Archipelago because it's so depressing and it's so true.
I'm kidding.
I love The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.
I highly recommend that.
It'll strengthen all of your faith.
And if you are not yet a believer of Jesus Christ and you're a logical person and you're like, eh, believing in Jesus is too illogical for me, check out the case for Christ.
It is the most reasoned and logical, factual case.
And so, just so you know, it's written by a guy by the name of Lee Strobel.
Lee Strobel was a guy that was an atheist and he dove into the facts to try to disprove the resurrection.
Correct.
And it ended up proving the resurrection by doing it.
Check it out.
Case for Christ, Lee Strobel.
And of course, if you guys haven't read Charlie Kirk's The MAGA Doctrine, I think it's so important now that we can't forget about the legacy of this president and the ideology that drove the success of the last four years.
Because unfortunately, January 6th is just going to be the new legacy in the media and for outspoken individuals on the left of what President Trump left behind.
That's right.
This is a really good analogy here: you don't jump off a battleship in the middle of the ocean because the compass isn't working.
You're more likely to get lost if you do.
No new party.
Let's get to work and be happy warriors.
I love that.
Super smart.
Thank you, man, for that email.
Let's get an email here.
Love listening to the podcast.
Thank you.
We are the sixth Podcast number six in news and the 10th podcast overall in Apple and all podcasting.
Thanks to you guys.
Okay, email us your questions, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Charlie and Isabel love the show.
How long do you think before Camela takes the rein, stay strong and keep the faith?
What's your over-under?
Eight months.
Wow.
I say, I think they're going to let him get one year in.
You think?
Yeah, I think one year.
We'll see.
We'll see.
As Trump says, we'll see what happens.
Let's say here.
Someone says, I think Lee Strobel would be a great guest for your program.
I agree.
I've tried to get him on, and we're going to continue to try.
I totally agree.
Hi, Charlie.
Brianna from New Jersey.
Thanks so much for speaking at Calvary Chapel yesterday.
Yes, thank you.
So inspiring and giving a proper perspective on how Christians should be courageous in these circumstances.
Quiz question.
To have the option of opening a chapter in Spanish, my church, the majority, only speaks Spanish.
We would love that, Brianna.
So I'm going to forward your email at our Turning Point USA team, and we'd love to get you involved.
Tpusa.com slash, get involved.
Tpusa.com, slash, get involved.
And I just emailed your uh email to our team.
Uh, let's get to a question here.
Uh, here's one for you.
Uh, just finished your book Campus Battleground.
Thank you um, I hope you do a follow-up with more examples.
Well Isabel, you have a book about campus stuff coming up.
I do here.
Pretty shortly february 23rd my first book will be coming out and it tells a lot of my story as a TP USA activist on campus.
I was pre-med in college.
Many of you guys have heard this story, but I never anticipated the left to be so strong and outspoken and experience such hatred as a conservative and as a Christian on my campus.
So it talks a lot about the assault on objective truth and conservative values in my college experience and beyond.
There's some crazy stories in there with my former campus administrators that i'm sure they're going to love to see published internationally, but I encourage you guys to check it out.
There's a lot more information on my personal social media at Theisabelle Brown on most platforms and i'll keep you updated as we get closer to launch day and this.
Everybody, just get involved and get engaged.
Isabel, at Turning Point USA, that's what we're doing every day, and it's Tpusa.com slash.
Get involved.
To stay involved, can I say, in the fight, in the fight.
Why not?
That's the thing that's gonna bother, what's gonna bother me the most, by the way, we are gonna be your go-to place for all the impeachment nonsense.
Next week.
We will go late into the night of the Senate impeachment because this is.
They are not impeaching Trump.
They're trying to destroy the constitution is what they're doing, and they are trying to delegitimize the constitution, and so it's less about Trump and more about our tradition and our precedent.
So you better believe we will be here monitoring it nearly 24-7.
Here's a question here.
Hey, Charlie, your talk with Jack Kibbs last night was amazing and so uplifting.
Thank you.
My question might be silly.
I'm new to politics and all the rules.
But will Trump's impeachment be fair?
Why is it going through the Senate where Democrats now have a majority?
Thanks you guys so much.
So it goes to the Senate because that's the constitutional provision of how we do impeachment.
The trial has to exist within the USA.
So the House indicts grand jury.
This is just metaphorical stuff.
It's not a perfect fit, but it's pretty good.
And then the Senate holds the trial.
And importantly, the Supreme Court of the United States, their chief justice, is presiding over the trial.
Yes, that is true.
So John Roberts proceeds over the whole trial.
Yes, according to the Constitution.
And so, and not the vice president.
Right.
So the vice president plays some role in the impeachment, though, right, Connor?
It's something.
The president of the Senate, Pence, was involved in something.
I think, you know what it was?
The final roll call vote or something he was involved in.
I could be wrong.
Please continue to email us your questions, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Hi, Charlie.
Love, love, love your show.
Thank you.
I'm new to you, kiddos, but have been pretty diligent listener last few weeks.
Thank you so much.
As a Christ follower and a conservative, can you point us in any direction of actionable intel moving forward during these next four years so as not to sit back but to stand up and quote unquote fight metaphorically for our beliefs and morals and policies?
Well, first of all, thank you for listening to us.
We monitor as much as we can, and I can tell you we're on top of a lot of it.
So our program, we appreciate you supporting and listening to that.
Other news sources, justthenews.com is great.
There's some other really good feeds out there that RealClearPolitics.com does a really good job.
But, you know, we're biased.
We hope that you continue to keep our live stream and our podcast as one of the top picks.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
If you want to get involved with Turning Point USA, go to tpusa.com, where we play offense with a sense of urgency to win America's culture war.
Email us your questions, freedom at charliekirk.com.
And if you would like to support our program, go to charliekirk.com/slash support.