Rittenhouse Verdict Watch—Everything You Need to Know with Jack Posobiec
Charlie is joined Human Events' reporter Jack Posobiec and host of Human Events Daily with TPUSA LIVE who has been all over the Rittenhouse trial and has sources inside the courthouse in Wisconsin. Charlie plays back some of the key moments from the Defense's closing arguments as the two of them react to the most explosive and shocking moments. Do you really lose the right to defend yourself when you bring the gun? Did Binger really point a gun at the jury? When can we expect a verdict? What is the risk of Kyle being found guilty of some of the lesser charges? Finally, Charlie and Jack discuss the indictment of Steve Bannon. Was there collusion between the Biden White House and his DOJ? What is Bannon's next move? Also, Jack has a very explosive scoop out of San Francisco regarding the future of Kamala Harris that could reshape the American political landscape over the next two years...so listen all the way to the end.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
Support The Show Now00:02:47
Hey everybody, Tan the Charlie Kirk Show.
A little extra extended conversation with Jack Pesobic, all about the Kyle Rittenhouse drama.
Can we expect a guilty verdict, innocent verdict?
Also, we talk about Steve Bannon, Project Veritas, and more.
Email me directly, freedom at charliekirk.com.
If you want to support our show, you could always do that at charliekirk.com/slash support.
I want to thank some of our supporters that do so that get behind us very generously and make what we do possible.
I want to thank Ginny from Oregon.
Thank you.
Kathy from West Virginia.
Thank you.
Deborah from Illinois.
Thank you very much.
Anthony from California.
Melinda from California.
Janice from Hawaii.
And Mary from Ohio.
When you guys support us at charliekirk.com/slash support, you basically say, Charlie, I love the work you're doing.
I want to get behind it.
I want to help you grow.
I want to help you flourish.
I want to help strengthen your program, hire more staff, you name it.
CharlieKirk.com slash support.
Go to it right now and help us out if you can.
Come to America Fest, everybody, December 18, 19, 20, and 21 in Phoenix, Arizona.
We have Tucker Carlson, Kaylee McInaney, Ted Cruz, Jesse Waters, Candace Owens, Jim Jordan, Donald Trump Jr., Madison Cawthron, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Jack Pesobic, Benny Johnson, Sean Foyt, Sarah Palin, Michael Chandler, Steve Weatherford, Jimmy John, Camera Haynes, special musical performances by Brantley Gilbert, Dustin Lynch, Russell Dickerson, Adam Doliak, Ray Lynn, Lee Greenwood, and DJ Silver.
tpusa.com slash a m f Phoenix is beautiful that time of year.
So check it out at tpusa.com slash a m f e s t check it out.
It's going to be epic.
Get your tickets today.
Jack Pesobic is here from Human Events Daily, brought to you by Turning Point USA.
So much we want to get into.
Buckle up 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.
Hey, everybody.
This episode is brought to you by my friends at ExpressVPN.
Expressvpn.com/slash Charlie.
Secure your device, anonymize your online activity, protect your action online.
Expressvpn.com/slash Charlie.
Help our show out by also helping yourself protect yourself.
Expressvpn.com slash Charlie.
Blackstone And Self Defense00:02:56
The idea of justice is supposed to be blind and is supposed to be, in its design, unimpacted by outside threats, intimidation, or influences.
The founding father of the Western idea of justice, the justice system, I guess you could say, is not an American.
It's a man by the name of William Blackstone.
William Blackstone was prolific.
He was special.
William Blackstone was a man who lived right before the Founding Fathers.
One of his most famous quotes is one that you'll hear in law school repeatedly: that it's better for 10 guilty people to escape than for one innocent person to suffer.
Now, what is the wisdom behind that quote?
And by the way, Blackstone was a devout Christian and had a great amount of respect for, not just respect, he believed in the transcendent biblical order.
And so he believed that the justice system must be intentionally rigorous, that in order to sacrifice someone, in order to take away someone's freedom of movement, of travel, of speech, and put them in a confinement, a prison, you must be really sure of what you're doing.
Now, Blackstone had some failings as well.
Blackstone was an unapologetic defender of the monarchy, as was Edmund Burke.
But Edmund Burke was, he was more supportive of the American Revolution than I think that most people ever give him credit for.
He was a harsh critic of the French Revolution, though.
Different topic for a different time.
William Blackstone famously said, no enactment of man can be considered the law unless it conforms to the law of God.
And so Blackstone was teasing what Jefferson would eventually say in the Declaration, the laws of nature and nature's God.
Nature coming from the Latin word birth or new or out of the earth.
William Blackstone had another quote, though.
William Blackstone, from 1723 to 1780, said the following.
Self-defense is justly called the primary law of nature.
So it is not, neither can it be in fact ever taken away by the laws of society.
William Blackstone, the architect of the Western justice system, said that self-defense is justly called the primary law of nature.
The Primary Law Of Nature00:05:44
Think about the significance of what he's saying there.
That if you're not able to defend yourself against an aggressor, then you are violating at the core the social contract of your existence in the laws of nature and nature's God.
Now, Blackstone meant this both for people like Kyle Rittenhouse and Brett Kavanaugh.
You see, Blackstone was not just saying that you should be able to defend yourself against the child rapist who wants to kill you, like Kyle Rittenhouse, but also against people like Christine Balzay Ford who decide to come out and say, you know, I think you did something bad to me.
And Brett Kavanaugh should be able to say, that's not true.
Blackstone understood that an aggressor going after an innocent, that the innocent has a moral and biblical obligation to defend oneself.
And that's really what's on trial here, isn't it?
It's not just that Kyle Rittenhouse, according to the activist media, should not have been able to defend himself in the street.
It's not that just Kyle Rittenhouse should not be able to defend himself against Rosenbaum or whatever that freak isoid is.
No, no, no.
It's that Kyle Rittenhouse should not even be able to defend himself in court.
It's that Kyle Rittenhouse, because he looked like he was part of a militia and he had his hat backwards with a gun, he's got to sit down and shut up and accept the societal ancestral guilt punishment of being a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant male from northern Illinois who carried a gun.
You have to suffer the same way they wanted to make Kavanaugh suffer, the same way they wanted to make Nick Sandman suffer, the same way they wanted to make the McCloskey suffer.
Do you see any common theme between all of those?
Kavanaugh, Covington, Rittenhouse, and McCloskey.
In fact, Connor, we got to get a picture of all of them.
All of them are white Anglo-Saxon Protestant conservatives that embodied a narrative, an archetype that was helpful to the regime, but when it actually comes up against facts, Kavanaugh, Sandman, McCloskey, Rittenhouse, it falls apart.
Cut 41.
If Kenosha don't get it, shut it down.
We are already hearing chants outside of the courthouse.
Do we have Cut 41?
And we have explicit threats on social media that if Kyle Rittenhouse gets acquitted, they're going to burn Kenosha to the ground.
Play Cut 41.
If Kenosha don't get, shut it down.
If Kenosha don't get, cut it out.
If someone don't get cut it down.
We are going to burn Kenosha down if we don't get what we want.
The issue at hand for everybody watching across the country around this is: yes, of course, we care about Kyle and his family.
We also care about the future of the rule of law, don't we?
Are we going to now toss aside the rule of law for a narrative?
William Blackstone had another wonderful quote: Free men have arms, slaves do not.
It's a beautiful quote, isn't it?
That men who are free need to be able to have weapons that defend themselves.
You know, what's so incredible is when I go to some campuses, I ask people who William Blackstone is, almost no one knows.
I ask people who Ibram X. Kendi is, Robin DeAngela's, the hands go up everywhere.
There is far more wisdom into the actual framework that now Kyle Rittenhouse is able to lean upon.
Let's get to some more sound here.
Let's go to Cut Cut 45.
This was a flashback back during Floyd Palooza.
Elderly man with a fire extinguisher tries to ward off BLM writers and protesters, then they beat him unconscious and he begins bleeding from the head.
Cut 45, you might remember this, graphic warning.
These are the people the prosecution have called heroes.
Play Cut 45.
And these are the people that the other side is trying to tell us are heroes.
Now, the National Guard has now been deployed to Kenosha.
Why has the National Guard been deployed to Kenosha?
Well, it's because now Governor Evers of Wisconsin is trying to prevent rioting and looting from happening in Kenosha, despite the fact that if he would have deployed the National Guard to prevent rioting and looting from Kenosha, this whole Kyle Rittenhouse drama never would have unfolded.
Self-defense is justly called the primary law of nature.
So it is not, neither can it be in fact taken away from the laws of society.
Ronald Reagan, self-defense is not only our right, it is our duty.
And Gandhi, though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defense or for the defense of the defenseless, it is an act of bravery, far better than cowardly submission, Gandhi said.
The latter befits neither man nor woman.
Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery.
Every man must judge this for himself.
No other person can or has the right.
Support American Beef Today00:02:31
James Monroe, the fifth president of the United States.
The right of self-defense never ceases.
It is among the most sacred and alike necessary to nations and individuals.
I want you to imagine over 100,000 Americans losing their jobs.
You could stop imagining because it's a reality.
Since 2015, over 100,000 independent farms and ranches in the United States have shut down.
Why?
Because foreign meat is stealing their businesses and robbing you of the quality and flavor that you deserve.
That's why Good Ranchers is here.
They exist to support local American farms that help you make great American meals.
Together, they restore the American ranch and your meals to the former glory.
Get the beef, chicken, and seafood that can't be imported or matched at goodranchers.com.
Goodranchers.com completes three basic needs.
Number one, you have to eat.
Number two, you want to support the country.
Number three, support the Charlie Kirk Show.
Did you know the product of USA TAG has been stolen by foreign countries?
Because of the foreign labeling laws that favor foreign imported meat, over 100,000 independent farms and ranches have closed since 2015.
Support American beef and meat, everybody.
Good Ranchers is here to put America numeral uno first at the dinner table and farmers that work to raise the meat we eat.
So get a box of meat delivered straight to your home.
And last week, Good Ranchers upgraded their website to handle the traffic that came from the listeners of this show.
Thank you for supporting Good Ranchers.
They support us.
If you had trouble ordering last week, goodranchers.com is back and better than ever with an extra special limited time offer.
Just go to goodranchers.com/slash Charlie right now and get 10 free bistro fillets.
And even better, subscribe and save $25 on each box of mouthwatering American meats for life that will show up on schedule right to your door.
That's right.
Get 10 free bistro fillets.
That's $100 value and free express shipping.
If you go to goodranchers.com/slash Charlie or use code Charlie at checkout.
That's 10 free Bistro fillets, free express shipping, and $25 off your subscription for life at goodranchers.com/slash Charlie.
Support the show, support the country, and eat well.
Goodranchers.com/slash Charlie.
Okay, a lot of people can say that they were ahead of the curve, but I'll tell you what, Jack Pasobic from Humanevents Daily, humanevents.com, in partnership with Turning PointUSA, TPUSA.com, was beyond the head of the curve.
The Jury Is Still Out00:03:55
He started the curve.
Jack Pesobic on his Twitter and his Telegram was saying, We are two weeks out from the Rittenhouse trial, one week out from the Rittenhouse trial.
He's been on top of it the entire time, and he joins us now.
Jack Pesobic is a good friend and a great American, and he is smart, and he's on top of the ball.
Jack, can you hear me?
Yeah, I can hear you just fine, Charlie.
And I appreciate you actually picking up on that.
I can tell, wow, it's like Charlie is actually following this because this was something that a lot of people have been sleeping on.
The fact that this case was coming up, it was getting closer.
It was getting closer.
Of course, news of the day is something that always is going to take precedence.
But I knew that this case would be a seminal moment in American politics and American culture here in the 21st century for a variety of reasons.
So thank you.
I appreciate you following the coverage like that.
Well, it is well earned and well-deserved.
You know, you're doing great work.
You hit home run after home run, and you've been on top of so many different things.
And if I could keep you the whole hour, I'm going to because I got a lot I want to ask you.
I want to ask you about banning it.
I want to ask you about all sorts of stuff.
Yeah, we actually can.
We're good time-wise.
I can do that.
All right.
So let's start with Kyle, though.
Just kind of recap yesterday for some people watching.
And then also where are we at right now?
Jury's deliberating.
What's the feel on the ground?
What's going on, Jack?
Quite literally, the jury is out, right?
The jury has gone out.
So we've got the composition has been reported by the Kenoshan News of the jury.
And keep in mind that we've been able to watch a lot of this trial based on the live stream.
But the one aspect that you couldn't see on any of these live streams was the jury.
Now, I had the ability to talk to a source who was in the room for the entire trial this past weekend, and he told me that it seemed as though the jury seemed to be, maybe not necessarily in Kyle's favor, but they seemed to have gotten a bad impression by the actions and the condescension and the tone from these prosecutors.
It really seemed like the prosecutors had turned it into a personal vendetta rather than a finding of truth or a finding of justice in the community.
It seemed like it had become very politicized, and it seemed as though the jury was not interested in that, that it kind of turned them off.
I hate, I can't stand this.
It should be illegal.
I don't know if it should be illegal.
It should just be, I guess it should be illegal.
I don't care about the color of the skin of people's jurors.
I think it's disgusting to actually try to stereotype it.
It's super racist, actually.
You have Joy Reid, you know, going on like, oh, I don't know if it's going to be a fair hearing because people don't look like me on the trial.
They're doing the same thing with Ahmaud Arbery.
But what is the composition?
What do we know about this jury, Jack?
So we know, we know at least for now, and this is what I was getting to with Kenosha News, they've reported seven women, five men.
One of the men is a person of color.
Okay.
So that tells us absolutely nothing, right?
And so, except the fact if you think you can predict people's inclinations based on the color of their skin.
So all it takes, though, is one, is that right, Jack?
That in order for him to be acquitted, all it takes is for one person to say that it's basically that he's not guilty.
Or would that result in a hung jury, right?
So they.
No, no, no.
So you're going to need full compliance from everybody, whether for guilt or for acquittal.
What you're talking about is the idea of a hung jury situation.
And in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, there is a very real danger of what's called a rogue juror or a stealth juror.
I think in this case, we might call it an activist juror.
If you've got someone on there who's super anti-Second Amendment, if you've got someone on there who's just completely like, I'm pro-BLM and pro-Antifa, and this guy has got a fry because he's not on my political team, then they will sit there and cross their arms and say, I ain't voting.
I don't care what those videos show.
I don't care what the evidence shows.
Dangers Of Rogue Jurors00:02:35
I'm not voting and you can't do it.
And that means that you would essentially have a mistrial situation and he would be potentially open for another trial.
The entire process could start over.
Yeah, and that would be bad, but that wouldn't be the worst situation, right?
The worst would be a guilty verdict, which I don't think is in the cards.
I don't.
I don't see it.
And I don't see all 12 people agreeing to that.
Would you think that's probably right?
Yeah, I think you could certainly find maybe a few people who would just have that belief that, you know, if he used it, we had one juror during selection saying, oh, if he used an AR-15, everything must be guilty because the AR-15 should be illegal, right?
You can find people who will say things like that, but I don't think you're going to find a group of people in the city of Kenosha that's going to say unequivocally that he's guilty.
Yeah, I think that there's a big concern, though, and a fear that there might be an obstinate, politically motivated juror.
When did we decide to stop upholding free speech as a basic right?
What's playing out right now at so many big tech companies and social media sites set a very dangerous precedent.
Look, it doesn't matter what your politics are or who you voted for.
Everyone should have the right to express themselves freely.
Sadly, the big tech oligarchs and their monopoly has instead opted for silencing people and censorship.
To fight back against big tech's control of the internet, I use Express VPN.
Ever wondered how free to access tech giants make all their money?
Well, by tracking your searches, they sell you.
They build a profile on you and they sell your sensitive data.
When you use ExpressVPN and their wonderful app on your computer or phone, you anonymize much of your online presence by hiding your IP address.
That makes your activity more difficult to trace and to sell to advertisers.
What's more is ExpressVPN encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cyber criminals.
What I like most is how easy it is to use.
It takes just one click to protect all your devices.
That's why ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET.
So let's stop allowing big tech to revoke our rights to free speech.
Why not revoke their right to your data instead?
Secure your internet with the VPN that I trust, the only VPN that I use.
Visit expressvpn.com slash Charlie.
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-PN.com slash Charlie.
To get three extra months free with my exclusive link, go to expressvpn.com slash Charlie right now to learn more.
Secure Your Internet Privacy00:15:08
Jack, so I got to ask you, so right now, the jury is deliberating and the judge has ordered the Rittenhouse family to be 10 minutes away in case of a verdict.
Is that right?
Yeah, that's right.
He's asking people to be close.
And Kenosha's on, they're on pins and needles.
There's a lot of tension in town right now.
I've been talking to people who are on the ground.
The National Guard has been called up, but Tony Evers, the governor of Wisconsin, the same governor who elected Kenosha Byrne last year, the National Guard was called up with Charlie.
They're an hour and a half out of the city.
They're 60 miles away.
And so just like on that night, the three nights, by the way, that Kenosha was terrorized last year.
And I saw David French, and he and I have been going back and forth today on Twitter.
And he had an article up about saying that, you know, Kyle Rittenhouse is no hero and you shouldn't lionize Kyle Rittenhouse.
And I agree with that, that we shouldn't have to have 17-year-old kids take matters into their own hands.
We should have a government that is protecting us, that is calling in soldiers who are trained and fully operated to be able to do this.
We shouldn't allow mobs of rioters to come up from Chicago and burn down our cities.
That's who I'm upset with.
I'm not upset with people who tried to make the best of a very terrible situation that never should have happened in the first place.
But I guess for David French, you know, that's just not enough because he doesn't care very much about the Second Amendment or an inherent right to defend yourself.
Well, and it's also completely irrelevant.
And so it's irrelevant to say that in a criminal proceeding, whether or not you think Kyle should have been there.
The fact is he was there.
None of his intent shows that he was there to actually hurt people.
He was there to try to administer medical aid.
I mean, you could say that about any situation, right?
Well, we wouldn't be here if he hadn't been there.
Yeah, of course, obviously.
And what's your point?
I get attacked, which I don't care, by saying, well, yeah, if George Floyd wasn't trading counterfeit currency, he wouldn't have been arrested.
Counterfeit currency most likely from China, by the way.
Yeah, and also if he wasn't, you know, maybe overdosing on drugs.
These are all maybes.
We're not allowed to talk about that, right, Jack?
Instead, we have to be more...
Well, remember, we can include the context when it's somebody who's not on our team, but when someone who is on our team, we have to paint them in the most possible, you know, positive light possible.
And that's the biggest interest.
For example, by the way, the defense was not allowed to bring in these questions about the criminal, the disgusting and depraved criminal history of Joseph Rosenbaum because, and you have to look at it from the sense of this, even though this guy was convicted of child rape, right?
That did not play a role in the circumstances because he was there that night.
He wasn't there that night doing that.
So it actually, like, I understand that from a jury situation because we are affording people the full benefit of law.
That is our system.
That goes back, you know, the famous quotation from Thomas More about affording the devil the full merit of law, right?
You want it for yourself.
You don't want past actions and irrelevant situations and relevant facts to have to deal with any situation.
But one interesting thing that Kyle Rittenhouse does have in his favor, a name that I think the mainstream media has just started to figure out, but it's the name of Joe Ellen Demetrius.
And the Washington Post just did a piece on her today, but they haven't realized exactly who this is and why she's so important.
She was the person who was the jury consultant for Kyle Rittenhouse.
What's she done in the past?
She was the jury consultant for O.J. Simpson, as well as Rodney King and a bevy of other very high-profile cases.
She wrote an entire book about being able to read people, being able to read jurors, and she has been a consultant both to Kyle and to his family and to the defense team all the way through this case.
She has been watching those jurors.
So they really do have an ace up their sleeve in terms of her doing this and being a part of it.
Look, I think the prosecution didn't do a great job in terms of their closing.
I don't know if the defense, there are things that I would have done differently on the defense.
Of course, I'm not there, but I do wish that they had told the story a little bit better.
I think they would have, if they had just stuck to that narrative, to understanding that had Kyle not been armed that night to be able to defend himself, he took steps to save his own life from a murderous mob that would have killed him, period.
His actions were taken in self-defense, period.
He would not be here today because he wouldn't be alive if that mob had been able to do what they wanted to do to him.
And so I was looking for those sort of definitive, declarative statements that paint the description, talking about the town being terrorized for three nights prior to that, understanding the context that he was in.
Because when you look at a self-defense situation, you look at the way the law is written, it is done from the perspective of the person who is committing the acts, right?
So he knows that a shot's gone off.
He knows a mob's coming after him.
He knows he's running for his life from his perspective.
From his perspective, a reasonable person can look at that and say he would most likely have been killed if he did not take taps, not just to defend himself, but to save his own life.
And that's a key phrase here because that's exactly what he did.
If he did not take those steps, and we've seen again and again throughout the summer of 2020, people were beaten, people were maimed, and people were killed in the riots of 2020.
And if we didn't know about this, Kyle Rittenhouse, unfortunately, would have been another statistic.
And what we're getting a lot, a lot of people are emailing us, freedom at charliekirk.com, and they're saying, Charlie, how did this even get to trial?
And so I guess my question is, Jack, did they submit more charges?
It's not just first-degree murder now, it's second-degree.
How can they do that mid-trial?
Can you help explain that to me and to our audience?
It doesn't really make a lot of sense.
Well, the reason that this is on trial in the first place is because of politics.
You know, typically in a self-defense situation, you don't have all of this video evidence.
You don't have the brave, intrepid citizen journalists like Drew Hernandez, Richie McGuinness, the whole team from Daily Caller, Jorge Ventura, Shelby Talcott.
You know, the names go on and on.
The Blaze had people there as well.
And really, Julio Rosas, and normally it's a situation like it's a back alley.
There was a mugger.
You know, he asked for my wallet and I pull out a gun.
I defend it, right?
So it's sort of a he said, you know, and then the other person isn't there to be able to testify.
So you don't have this video.
The fact that we do have the video of Kyle clearly taking steps, he's not indiscriminately firing.
He's not just opening up fire on a crowd like the way that Joe Scarborough wants us to think, firing 60 rounds.
He didn't even have 60 rounds.
He had 30.
And by the way, no, he wasn't firing indiscriminately because there were 22 rounds still left in his magazine at the end of that night because he was not firing indiscriminately.
He wasn't hunting.
He wasn't trying to kill people.
He was trying to save his own life.
That's number one why he's on trial is politics.
It's all politics about finding a scapegoat for the burning of Kenosha.
The mayor, the governor know that they failed, and so they're trying to make this all about Kyle Rittenhouse.
Who brought violence?
He did, not the mob, not the people who were on our side.
Well, no, they were just protesting for justice.
They were just activists.
They just, you know, they may have got a little at hand, but that's just activism.
No.
Political violence cannot be.
It cannot be suborned, number one, and it certainly can't be justified.
That's why I held a rally in front of the White House all the way back in summer, June 2017, talking about this.
I went and protested.
I interrupted one of the performances of Shakespeare in the Park when they were stabbing this actor dressed up like Trump every single night.
Well, I went and disrupted it and said, you need to stop doing this.
And I made some colorful comments to the people who were there, and that went pretty viral.
But the idea was we cannot normalize political violence in the United States.
Look, I had family that was behind the Eastern Curtain, that lived on the Eastern Front.
You don't want to go to one of those places.
It's as simple as that.
So tell the truth and don't lie about what happened because, oh, well, that was my team, so I got to cover for them.
So, Jack, so explain the charges, though.
Is he for first degree, second degree, because they changed the charges?
Can you talk?
It's first degree, it's second degree, it's reckless endangerment, endangerment of the community.
They're talking about reckless involuntary manslaughter.
What's going on that we saw last Friday in the instruction conference?
Now, the jury was out of the room for this.
These prosecutors, you've got D.A. Binger, who is a man without testosterone, and they've got this guy, D.A. Krauss, who I call Lunchbox.
I call him Lunchbox.
And I think we all know why he's a Lunchbox.
That these guys were tacking on every single lesser included charge they possibly could find because they are not confident in their own charges.
And then we saw the judge, by the way, yesterday threw out the gun charge because it didn't apply in this case.
They knew that from the start.
They threw it on there maliciously to try to paint this entire trial as if, you know, it's coming from this, this media narrative has always been, well, he crossed state lines with an AR-15.
Well, number one, he didn't cross state lines with AR-15 because, or that he shouldn't have had before, he wasn't allowed to have.
He didn't cross state lines with AR-15, and he was allowed to have an AR-15 under Wisconsin law as a 17-year-old because it was not a short barrel rifle.
That law was about short barrel rifles.
These prosecutors knew it.
They're not confident.
The judge threw it out, and they're tacking on all this extra stuff to try to think, well, if the jury's not going to give him for murder, maybe we can hang him up on one of these other things as a way of finding some way to split the baby on this.
Yeah.
And so I guess I don't understand it as well enough because it would be different arguments for every single charge, wouldn't it?
And that's where the defense needs to, they should be given an opportunity because first degree, you have to have an intent standard.
Manslaughter is separate, right?
And so I guess they went through that in closing arguments, did they?
Well, so it's considered, it actually is.
And I've got to give a huge shout out to Attorney Andrew Branca.
If you can get him on, he will explain this way better than I can.
He does law, self-defense blog.
And the way he described it is it is an imperfect self-defense situation where what it means is you were allowed to use self-defense, but essentially you took things into the level, escalated to the point where it was deadly and you didn't need to, right?
So it's kind of this gray area where even if you're defending yourself, you become excessive in your defense of yourself, you know, didn't need to kill that person.
They ended up dying.
You know, I think obviously if you look at the facts of this just from a plain reading of the evidence, it certainly shows that he took appropriate steps to defend himself and that any reasonable person would be able to do this.
But it is this sort of legal gray area of, say, of trying to, again, find a middle ground of saying, all right, we can see that he had self-defense, but not that much self-defense.
Right.
And so that's going to kind of be down to the jury to kind of.
Because keep in mind, right?
Keep in mind, and this is just the reading of it, Charlie, is so the prosecutors kept making Lunchbox said this over and over.
Why didn't he just fight him?
Why didn't he just use his fists?
Why didn't he just take the beating?
Well, it's simple because Rosenbaum was not simply fighting with his fists.
He was going for the gun.
And in so going for the gun, he was not unarmed.
He was in the process of arming himself.
And at the same time, simultaneously in the process of disarming Kyle Rittenhouse.
That's starting to make more sense.
Again, I know enough to be dangerous about this stuff.
I don't ever tell my audience.
Again, Andrew Branca, this guy is just incredible.
Law, self-defense blog.
It's all together.
I'm going to get him on to ask questions about that.
You have homeowners' insurance for a good reason.
Charlie Kirk here, because without it, a fire, flood, or burglary could destroy you financially.
But there's another major crime your homeowner's policy does not cover.
It's called home title fraud.
The FBI calls title fraud one of the fastest growing crimes, and it can ruin you financially, which is why you need home title lock.
Title fraud happens when a criminal forges your signature on documents stating you sold your home to him.
Then he takes out loans against your home and leaves with the payments.
You'll spend a fortune in legal fees trying to prove you didn't commit fraud.
Home title lock puts a barrier around your home's title.
The instant they detect anyone, from a cyber thief to a renter to a relative trying to forge their way to your home's title, they help shut it down.
Go to home, titlelock.com and register your address now to see if you're already a victim.
It's a very important service.
Make sure your home is not being stolen without your knowledge.
Home titlelock.com, promo code radio, for 33 days of protection.
That's home-titlelock.com, promo code radio.
Home title lock.com, promo code radio.
So, Jack, from what I understand, the judge gave very clear instructions that if he's innocent or not guilty on the main charge, the other lesser charges might not stand.
Is that right?
Well, not necessarily.
It's if he acted in self-defense.
So if you find that he acted in self-defense on each of the various incidents here, it's really four incidents, believe it or not, because interestingly enough, the prosecutors have named Daily Caller reporter Richie McGinnis as one of the potential victims of Kyle Rittenhouse because of reckless endangerment.
Why is that?
Because, and it's actually, it's quite silly when you look at it, but of course, this is what they're doing.
The entire case is quite silly.
That McGinnis was standing behind Rosenbaum, basically in the line of fire, to look at it that way, while Kyle was defending himself against Rosenbaum.
So there is the potential that he could have endangered Richie McGinnis, even though Richie McGinnis, of course, went in and testified, and the clip went viral.
Basically, even though he was called in by the prosecutors, he testified really on behalf of Kyle.
And his testimony completely went towards Kyle's defense that, yes, that the assailant was or the aggressor was Rosenbaum going for the gun 100% here.
So it's just wild to me.
And I know Richie, he's a friend of mine.
We were in Chad's together out in Seattle.
He was there that day when Wayne Antifa got in my face out at the Lincoln Park statue down the street here.
And we got that kind of picture of me with facing off with the guy.
Richie was like maybe 10 feet away when that happened and that all went down.
So it's incredible to me to see that not only is one of the charges concerning Richie, but Richie's there testifying really on behalf of Kyle.
Yeah, and yet they're trying to.
So you mentioned this tape.
I want to play this tape here of the brilliant Joe Scarborough mocking Kyle Rittenhouse for having an AR-15 and for shooting 60 rounds or whatever.
Let's play cut 46.
Here we have a 17-year-old kid underage, said he bought an AR-15 because he thought it was cool.
He drove across state, had his mother drive him across state lines.
He appointed himself a militia member.
Joe Biden Signs Indictment00:15:41
He goes around and he ends up unloading, what, 60 rounds?
So is any of that true, Jack?
I mean, I assume that he ride, you know, his mom drives him sometimes every once in a while.
Other than that, no, he was not.
He did not have the AR-15 across state lines.
The judge, of course, dropped the weapons charge.
So that's a complete lie.
But the bigger lie is that he fired 60 rounds.
I don't even think he had 60 rounds on him that entire night.
Again, he brought that weapon there for positive defense of himself if something came out.
And by the way, when Kyle was going around that night, he was offering medical aid to people regardless of where they were from, regardless of quote unquote, what side they were on and anything.
He wasn't asking people if they were on the left or the right or BLM, Republicans, any of that.
Yeah, who'd you vote for?
No, none of that.
He was there trying to render aid.
By the way, breaking news, not necessarily from the trial, but the other assailant, the man that Kyle shot at, who's only been referred to thus far as Jump Kick Man.
This is the photo that came out that you can see a gentleman, you know, a guy who's just leaping through the air, kicking Kyle in the head while he's already on the ground.
Not only is he, was he not identified, he was not charged, he has now been identified by Dan O'Donnell in Wisconsin as they have targeted the guy.
Apparently, they found out, they haven't released his name yet, but they did identify who it was and they found that he did reach out to the prosecutors and offer to testify in exchange for immunity for a DUI that he's facing against with Kenosha.
But instead, just like Zaminski, the Zaminski's, Joshua Zaminski, who fired the first shot at Kyle Rittenhouse, the prosecutors did not call this person to the stand.
They didn't ask him to come out.
They didn't want the jury to see why it was that he leapt at Kyle Rittenhouse.
In fact, none of the people who were involved in any of this, with the exception of Gage Grosskrutz, who is essentially a 1B Antifa member, was able to testify.
And you saw how ridiculous and like he was the best one they could find to testify against Kyle.
In 10 seconds, do we expect a jury decision today?
Well, I think we get a decision today.
It would be a full acquittal.
But I could certainly see the jury holding off and saying that they want to go a couple of days because, again, they tacked on all of these extra charges and there's a lot to go through.
Another good David French tweet to comment on.
He said, I just got my Pfizer booster, and this was so far was the only side effect.
And he posted a picture of Aquaman with his, I guess, his super trident powers and said that that has turned him into some kind of super.
I mean, I don't understand what kind of person, a grown man bases his life around movies made for children and then runs around bragging about all the vaccines he's taking.
Like, like, that's like, congratulations.
You went into a CVS and got a shot, dude.
Like, anyone can do that.
Yeah, but I guess it's superpower.
I want to play a couple, a little bit more sound of Kyle, then I want to get into Bannon.
And we have, I know you have a stop and I have a stop here, but I wanted to just kind of get into this.
Okay.
So what on earth was this prosecutor doing?
We're going to play Cut 29.
He's like waving the gun at the jury.
I've never seen anything like this.
Play Cut 29.
What we see in the video.
Him putting the fire extinguisher on the ground and then raising the gun.
John Robin, Jeff, he's facing the wrong direction.
What was that, Jack?
So what you're seeing there is someone who has never handled a firearm in his life, certainly not an AR-15, doesn't know anything about gun safety, doesn't even know the basic mechanics of how you're supposed to hold a gun.
If you look at from the other angle, his finger is positively on the trigger, even though he's pointing it at other human beings that he does not intend to pull the trigger.
This guy is a joke.
Like, this is what you have to do when you have none of the evidence on your side, when you have none of the facts on your side.
He was going for a shock moment.
He wanted to shock the jury into seeing what it would feel like to have an AR-15 pointed at them.
But you have to wonder if that was a double-edged sword because in the situation of Joseph Rosenbaum, he had an AR-15 pointed at him and he continued chasing that person.
He did not stop.
He decided that he wanted to keep going to kill them.
Yeah, and I never understood.
Obviously, we don't know what these people were thinking.
I mean, when someone's fully armed in the AR-15, why are they harassing him and attacking him?
Did they think he wasn't going to use it?
Or were they emboldened by the mob narrative that, ah, no matter what, we're going to be okay?
I cannot.
I mean, Charlie, at the end of the day, it's mob mentality, right?
You've got people that are out there already smashing, looting, burning.
When he went up, Joshua Zaminsky was pouring accelerant and lighter fluid into one of those cars at the car source, and they were lighting it on fire.
His wife was another person.
They've actually both been charged with arson for that.
Though we'll see if that case actually goes through, because for some reason, it seems like the prosecutor is really only keeping out of books on that one on the books that they don't come and testify.
And so they're in a mob state.
They've essentially turned off their sort of prefrontal cortexes and said, you know, we are just going to revert back to this primal state of destruction, destroying.
And they see a guy who's coming up with a fire extinguisher who's, you know, not on our team, who's part of the other group.
He's not of our tribe.
And then so they, you know, they revert to, you know, destroy the outsider, kill the outsider.
Play cut 25 here.
I was shocked when I heard this.
The prosecutor says you lose your right to self-defense when you're the one who brings the gun.
Play cut 25.
You can't claim self-defense against an unarmed man like this.
You lose the right to self-defense when you're the one who brought the gun, when you're the one creating the danger, when you're the one provoking other people.
Jack?
You know, go talk to anybody who's got a concealed carry permit like myself or anyone who's in an open gun state, open carry state.
You obviously, no, if you're exercising your Second Amendment right, no, you are not aggressing anyone and you certainly do not lose your right to self-defense.
That is an inherent right.
Charlie, I think the last time we were on here, we talked about this, that you do not have rights if you also do not have the right to defend them, right?
It's as simple as that.
If you don't have the, you know, it's one thing for me to, okay, if I have the Second Amendment, but I've got a bunch of guns, you know, in a safe in my house.
This was the DC gun law.
This was Heller, right?
This was the Heller case that to keep and bear arms means that you can use them to defend your life and defend your home.
That's the point because DC gun laws effectively prevented anyone from being able to do that.
This is case, this Supreme Court law, right?
The law of the land, right?
The law of the land here in the United States.
And yet Binger just decides to throw that out the window because it doesn't fit in.
But are they going in a direction where they want to say that, okay, we can't get rid of your guns, but we're going to get rid of your ability and your freedom and the right to use the guns.
Right.
And this was the D.C. gun law, right?
So the D.C. gun law stated that you could have your gun, sure, because the Second Amendment, but it had to be locked up and the ammo had to be locked up.
And each one, each piece of it had to have an individual gun lock and the ammo had to be locked.
And so there was no effective way for you to ever be able to use it if you were in an emergency or crisis situation.
And that's what, you know, I'm paraphrasing a lot here, but that's the summary of what Heller found or what the court found in the Heller decision.
And so what Binger is saying, he's taking it to the next level and saying that you are losing.
It's really what it is.
It's a full mask off moment for the regime.
They're telling you, well, we're not going to take your guns, but we're going to tell you that you're not allowed to use them, right?
So it's in the same way that people like Binger and David French will sit and watch movies on TV of men doing manly things, that you won't actually be allowed to do any of that in the real world.
Just also, this ties into McCloskey and Kavanaugh and Covington.
You know, the McCluskeys are actually there today.
We actually have a tape of that.
Let's play that.
So let's play Cut 48, Mark McCluskeys and Kenosha to support Kyle Rittenhouse.
Play Cut 48.
Jose Lewis.
That's right.
And that's why we show that there is a right to defend yourself.
There is truth.
There is reality.
And despite what the mainstream media says, and despite what the president of the United States may say, the jury in this trial heard the facts.
And we're hoping that they find Kyle Rittenhouse innocent on all accounts.
And not guilty on all accounts.
What do all those people have in common?
Nicholas Sandman, Brett Kavanaugh, McCloskey, Kyle Rittenhouse.
Seems like there's a theme.
These are all people who stood up to the mob.
They said, we are American citizens.
We have rights.
With Nick Salmon, he's literally standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, right?
Standing in the nation's capital, and he's attacked by the mob.
The McCluskeys, their home was attacked by the mob.
Kyle Rittenhouse was attacked by a mob.
And you could go to Andy No's Twitter feed or my Twitter feed, Elijah Schaefer, and see all the other instances where people were attacked by mobs in 2020 and they weren't able to defend themselves.
And you can see the results of those mob attacks.
And it's horrific.
So I want to shift gears for just a second here as we have you, Jack.
What's going on with Bannon?
Bannon was indicted last Friday.
He was.
He surrendered to the FBI yesterday.
You were on his show.
What's going on with Steve Bannon?
I mean, this is Honey Badger Unleashed.
He came out there and he said, Joe Biden, you picked the wrong target.
He said, I know that Joe Biden stepped off Marine One and gave the order to Merrick Garland to order the prosecution.
So how does he know that?
I heard that.
I'm going to just ask, how does he know that?
I'm interested to hear because he didn't get that from me.
I had a little bit of reporting on where it was coming from, but I do know that Joe Biden signed off on it.
And I do know that Merrick Garland's.
Well, how do you know that?
I know that from a White House official.
Well, okay.
I trust your sources.
Okay.
So if you, I was saying, I'm not going to say I don't trust Bannon's family.
They certainly just try.
They certainly did take it, of course, to Garland and to Biden.
And they said that.
So hold on a second.
I just want to make sure I'm understanding.
So the President of the United States is now determining Attorney General policy?
Is that your accusation?
Well, that's exactly what I'm hearing.
Yes.
That they took it to him.
The rest of the story that I heard was that because Biden was, I think as everybody knows, he clearly wasn't feeling very well on his European trip.
It took a lot out of him.
There's lots of reports and even public statements from world leaders about his health issues on that trip.
So when he came back, he was already about 50%.
And so I think that people, the staff.
And his 100% is not exactly stellar.
Precisely.
And his 50% is like anybody else's 5%.
And so they kind of knew that Biden, you know, if you need something from Biden, this is the time to push.
And so the staff really went to him sort of at that low point and just pushed and said, we're going to do this.
We're going to do this.
And now we see the results of it.
Yeah, but Jack, a president dictating Attorney General policy, even the inference of that is impeachable.
I mean, that's so that's very, very unusual and some would say illegal, right?
The Attorney General, you're allowed.
Well, I think, I think, I mean, count one will certainly be Afghanistan for Joe Biden, but I think there's numerous counts that'll probably hopefully come up in 2023 when the new Congress is.
So, okay, let's walk through this.
Okay, so then Steve Bannon says that it was Maureen One and like he does the salute or whatever.
He's like, all right, indict him.
Centrally, that was kind of like the way.
I mean, it's a great image.
That's not exactly the story of how I heard it went down, but it definitely got tattooed on there.
Okay, so Bannon gets indicted on Friday.
So let me just ask the obvious question: why go through this?
Why not just comply with Congress?
What is the thought process here?
Well, so what's interesting, if you listen to Bannon's lawyer or read any of his legal responses, and I've read them all, I read them in real time as they came out, that Bannon never said that he wouldn't testify or that he wouldn't provide documents.
It was a documentary subpoena that came out.
But what he said was, look, there's an executive privilege question here because you're asking me for statements that I was told by the sitting president of the United States, President Trump, when he was still in office.
I can't tell you those because he's exerting executive privilege over all of his statements that took place during that time.
And so he is obviously suing the committee.
This is going to go to the Supreme Court.
And what his lawyer said was, we are waiting for the decision on the executive privilege question before we can respond to the subpoena because you're asking me for statements that were made by the sitting president of the United States.
So he actually does have quite a strong legal case when it comes to that.
And this is not the sort of thing that you usually see ever prosecuted here in Washington.
Yeah, contempt of Congress is really hard to challenge.
I suppose, though, that why not even just go through the motions, right?
I mean, or why not like engage with the committee?
And, you know, well, it's interesting because there are ways to fight a subpoena.
I mean, you can counter-sue.
You can do all sorts of things.
You can take it to the court.
He didn't attempt any of those things.
He certainly didn't attempt to counter-sue.
He didn't attempt to stall.
He didn't attempt any of that stuff.
He made a legal argument back and said, I'm waiting for the court's decision.
Once the decision comes out, we'll be able to tailor our response to you based on their decision.
It's actually a pretty strong and straightforward legal argument.
I've had some people reach out and not even, you know, like Republican types reach out and say, you know, I don't know if this passes the bar for motion of dismissal if this goes to trial, because when you're looking at it on the merits, it doesn't quite seem like they've provided actual evidence of contempt.
Yeah, and that's the question.
That's one of the questions.
So he, Bannon, yesterday.
But we all know why it's happening.
I hope everybody kind of gets it.
Explain that.
Right.
So, I mean, this is happening because it's sending a message, right?
This is a message to the rest of the country, to the other members of the president's administration that are on that list.
And it's quite an extensive list of people who have subpoenas out.
McCarthy's on the list.
Basically, Annie Kash Patel, anybody who was in the White House, Johnny McEntee, people who are in and around during those last days of the Trump administration are all going to be called forward on this.
And so basically, the message is being sent.
Even some members of Congress, right?
Lauren Boebert, they're talking about Marjorie Taylor Green, Matt Gates, people who are, again, sitting members of their own body, right?
January 6th Commission is part of the House of Representatives.
And so the real question becomes, you know, how far are the courts going to allow them to go on this?
Because again, they're not a law enforcement body that's allowed to conduct investigation, criminal investigations like this.
They are supposed to be a legislative body, you know, go all the way back to Schoolhouse Rock.
So why is this happening?
Number one, you're sending a message.
Number two, it's just a naked power grab.
This is, we're done with persuasion.
We're done with sort of the ephemeral, illusory, you know, persuasion.
This is just naked power.
Congress Members Speak Out00:14:05
You will comply with the regime.
You will comply with orders.
We are not asking.
We are telling.
So Bannon then said yesterday that we're going to go after the Biden regime.
We're going on offense.
This is a misdemeanor from hell.
What does he mean by all that?
Well, what's interesting to me is that, you know, a guy like Steve Bannon, he wants the platform, right?
He wants the ability to be before the American people and present what he views as evidence from last year, January, or excuse me, November 3rd, right?
That's what this whole thing was about, that he wanted to talk about his argument for irregularities on 3 November.
That was the whole point of calling for a debate on January 6th.
And they go through that podcast and they, I say, play the episodes, and Media Matters has this thing out now, where they go through and some of the episodes I'm on and some of the others from War Room from the days prior to January 6th.
And they always cut it right before we say, oh, it's going to be historic.
It's going to be a big day.
It's going to be a huge day.
And they always cut it right before we say for the debate in the well of the Senate over irregularities from November 3rd.
They always cut it right before anyone says that because, again, nobody called for violence of any sort.
So you're saying that the clip that they use where Bannon said hell's going to be unleashed or whatever, right?
Or, you know.
The debate in the well of the Senate.
That's what he's talking about.
And Hawley was on board with that.
A number of congressmen were on board with that.
That's the only thing that's huge missing context is what you're saying around that.
Well, the context is there if you actually go and watch the phone.
No, no, no, it's missing from the context coverage.
Yeah, the way the media is covered.
Yeah, that's right.
So, okay, now I want to ask you about, so this is a really interesting moment, right?
So we have Rittenhouse on trial.
We have that all playing out.
Then you have Bannon indicted.
And by interesting, I mean horrifying.
Let me just be very clear.
Then you have Project Veritas raided.
What's going on with that, Jack?
Because you and I have been interfacing back and forth about this.
This is end of regime type stuff.
This is fall of Rome, purging political opponents type stuff.
Right.
I mean, you're essentially seeing the regime's enemies list, and they're making moves against them.
I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if you and I are on some of these enemies lists out there from various entities in the government.
It's all about, you know, this is what they said in the Soviet Union.
Show me the man and I'll show you the crime.
That was the motto of the KGB in the Soviet Union.
I had family in communist Poland behind the Eastern, you know, the Iron Curtain or East Germany.
If you watch the movie Lives of Others, they will find a way to launch an investigation of you.
And then the invest, and then in the investigation, if you don't, you know, you don't say, you know, do the sign of the cross before you go walk across the street or whatever it is, boom, they got you, right?
Because you, you know, forgot to cross your T's or dot your lowercase I's.
And so what they're doing is they're using lawfare.
They're using naked political power through the justice system, the weaponization of the justice system.
Of course, we've seen this with the corruption of the FBI play out all through the Trump administration and all through the last five years.
Now, because Trump is sort of adjacent to the chess board at the moment, they're trying to do everything they can to say, okay, the king's over there, but we've got all these, we've got the Knights, we've got the Rooks, we've got everyone else that we can go after, take out all of them before the chess move can be happening, can be made again.
And so, what is the latest with Project Veritas?
They're in court, but also who's leaking the confidential privileged information to the New York Times.
Do you think the FBI is doing that?
I think this is all the Southern District of New York.
And, you know, I've said this to James and I'll say it to people on PV: you guys got to get out of New York.
Don't, don't, get out of cities.
Don't be there, man.
Because the Southern District of New York, if you're under their jurisdiction, they are the most politically weaponized districts in the entire country.
They have been for some time now, and they will use any pretext to go after you.
Again, James O'Keefe never published the Ashley Biden diary.
Never once did you hear anything from James O'Keefe or Project Veritas or anyone connected to Project Veritas about this diary.
It's a completely separate website, but it doesn't matter because they found out that James knew about it at one point and they used that as a pretext for a pre-dawn raid where they threw him up against the wall, right?
Threw him up against the wall at six in the morning, dragged him out of his house, his apartment, and said, We are going to go through your things because we have a warrant.
These are the actions of a failing regime.
The question is for the American people: do you want to continue living in a country where stuff like this happens, or do you want change?
It's as simple as that.
And yeah, the Southern District is beyond aggressive, right?
I mean, what they did with Dinesh D'Souza, Rudy Giuliani, Steve Bannon.
And you make a good point: proximity matters.
It's not that other districts won't be as ambitious, but SDNY seems to be just over-the-top politicized, right?
And the fact that James O'Keefe's headquarters was still in New York, it kind of put him over the target a little bit.
Like, if he would be headed, if he was in Texas, I don't know if this raid would have happened.
I really don't.
Yeah, I mean, it really is a question about that because the U.S. attorney typically that gets appointed to one of these districts.
Now, of course, they do serve at the pleasure of the president.
And we know that Trump went in and appointed people and in other cases fired people.
And of course, there was always this big hoopla about it.
But that's actually a typical thing that happens from administration to administration.
But it usually is somebody from that area.
It's somebody who's got ties to that area, someone who typically has political ambitions in that area afterwards.
You know, maybe you want to run for governor.
Chris Christie, as an example, was the district of Northern Jersey and became Rudy Giuliani.
Was head of the Southern District of New York office?
Ran for mayor, right?
After cleaning up the mob.
So actually, you know, back when the justice system was used for good.
And so he took down the five families.
And so you know that if this was in Texas or if this were somewhere else that's more of a red area, then you're going to have less of a chance of these types of politicized, weaponized justice actions against you.
Yeah.
And so if you're operating on that, and then you have the if you're a leftist, then you know, the world's your oyster.
Oh, you could do whatever you want.
I mean, and you just look at Clinton, you look at all that.
So kind of more.
So we have all this happening at once.
What's the big takeaway?
Bannon, Rittenhouse, Veritas.
There's a lot happening.
And these are the issues I care about more.
Infrastructure while Republicans are celebrating infrastructure.
I think you're seeing, I think you're seeing the regime and the administration get desperate.
I think this is.
I think we agree.
You and I are on the same page about that.
This is not, these are not the actions of someone who's a confident group of people.
No.
Right?
They say, oh, these guys are just a, you know, Veritas, that's a fringe group.
Bannon, that's just a fringe group.
Turning point USA, Jack Fesobic, Charlie Kirk, they're all Kyle Britton.
These are fringe one-offs.
Well, if it was like that, then why are you so worried about us?
Why are you constantly on top of us?
Why is Media Matters clipping podcasts and live streams that we do every single day?
Right.
And it's simple because our numbers are up.
Our ratings are up.
Tucker's ratings are up.
They're killing it every night.
Why?
Because people are listening to those that have facts that aren't lying to you, that aren't pushing their agendas.
They're saying, look, we don't want this.
Is why Virginia happened?
Right.
We're sick of the crazy and we want to go back to common sense.
We can have political disagreements.
I want political disagreements.
Those are, I would love to be able to argue about infrastructure and spending and taxing and all the rest of it.
But we can't do that when we have a regime that's pushing their version of reality on the rest of the citizens.
So I agree.
I think this is the last gasps of a dying regime and this is desperation stuff.
And they know that there's going to kind of be an equal and opposite reaction here.
And they're trying to get as many chess pieces off the board as possible.
And I think that they're surprised at the consolidation of support behind James O'Keefe.
Look, there's a reason, by the way, that Nancy Pelosi is making noises like she won't be here come 2023.
If you go back and I just spent some time, unfortunately, I spent some time in San Francisco, as you know.
I was speaking up there at Silicon Valley.
And believe it or not, there are some conservatives up there.
I was surprised to find that it was a bit of an underground.
And the Liberty Forum, great, great organization.
I spoke there many years ago.
Great people.
Great people.
And they tell me that the, you know, essentially the casting call has gone out.
Who wants to replace Nancy Pelosi in that district, that San Francisco district?
And look at what great of a job she's done for the city of San Francisco.
Man, just a wonderful, beautiful, shining literal city on a hill, San Francisco.
Every, all the wonderful, the joy and the excitement that the people and the safety.
Let me tell you a quick story about San Francisco.
So I speak Chinese.
My wife speaks Chinese.
We love to find opportunities to practice our Mandarin, right?
So I learned, she was a linguist.
I learned it when I was in the Navy.
I lived in China for a while.
And so I said, you know, San Francisco, Chinatown, I've always heard is one of the oldest, one of the largest, the best Chinatowns in the United States.
So I said, oh, I'd love to go there, find a place where they speak Mandarin, just walk in.
You know, you always get that look on their face, like, oh, you speak our language.
That's cool.
Like, sit down, have a nice seat, whatever.
And we go in, Charlie.
We went out at 7 o'clock, 7 p.m.
We couldn't find a restaurant that was open at 7 p.m.
They were shut down, bars over the windows, bars over the doors.
I know looking around, and it's all because of the crime.
They say, because the minute the sun goes down, the crime comes.
That's right.
And meanwhile, you have Pelosi and Newsom.
They're fine.
They are the, we talk about this a lot.
They are the...
Well, and they were at the Getty wedding that same week.
Of course, no, they are the Plato's guardians, right?
So Plato had in one of his dialogues this idea of the people who are in charge of society that are immune to all of the measures and all of the consequences of the decisions that they implement.
They are the ultimate, they are the unelected, right?
And you could obviously say, oh, Pelosi's elected.
She's unelected.
I mean, give me a break.
It's Western San Francisco, right?
She runs it like a mob.
And so, but she doesn't care.
She'll go eat with a private chef.
Who is she to go to?
What was amazing was they were taking, so the Gettys, this is the oil family.
They got their money from oil years and years ago, and now they basically run California politics to a large extent.
They've had their wedding over the weekend, the grandson.
So Newsom's there.
That's the first time he popped his head above water.
Pelosi officiated, but the symbology and the images and the things they were wearing.
And somebody went and they took that picture and then put up the hunger games, right?
Those scenes from the Capitol.
You remember the Capitol and Hunger Games?
And it was like you couldn't, if you looked at it close, like you looked away and then looked at it, you couldn't even tell which was which because they looked exactly the same.
The regime is cracking down literally on political opponents and dissidents while they are ensconced in their power centers, wearing their livery and their flowers, putting masks over the servants, right?
Voiceless servants.
That's exactly something from Hunger Games.
And it's as if there are two separate sides here.
There's a regime and there's everybody else.
There's this great quote from Plutarch that I'm trying to find in.
Yeah, I'm doing Hunger Games.
You're throwing Plutarch at me.
No, no, no.
Plutarch Heavensby from...
Oh, right, right, right.
Okay, never mind.
Hunger Games.
Not the Plutarch, the other Plutarch.
Yes, this is it right here.
Okay, I'm trying to find this here.
This is the Phil Tuvalu character, right?
He rest in peace.
I'm a huge fan.
He was so sad.
Wouldn't it be so great if he could play Bandon in the movie, by the way?
Are you kidding me?
Who else would do this?
Who else could do it?
And his voice, his intonation.
I'm trying to get him to play Bandon Games.
Let me try to find this quote.
It's one of the great ones.
Okay, this is great.
So, of course, he was playing.
Try to find this, Connor, try to find this sound if we could play it out here.
I've been thinking about this recently, but if you could find that clip, is Connor around?
I don't know where everyone is.
They've all left.
Okay, whatever.
So let me tell you this.
So this is the dialogue.
It's beautiful.
And I'm a big Hunger Games fan, and you and I have talked about this.
So President Snow played by Jack Bower's dad, Sutherland, right?
Donald Sutherland.
Donald Sutherland.
Jack Bower's dad.
He says, Yes, it is Jack Bower's dead.
She's not who you think she is.
She's not a leader.
She just wants to save her own skin.
It's as simple as that.
Plutarch says, I think that's true.
President Snow, she's become a beacon of hope for the rebellion, and she has to be eliminated.
Plutarch says, I agree she should die, but in the right way, at the right time.
It's moves and counter moves, and it's what we got to look at.
Katniss Everdeen is a symbol.
They're mocking Jay.
They think she's one of them.
We need to show that she's one of us.
We don't need to destroy her, just the image.
Then we let people do the rest.
So what do you propose, President Snow says?
Shut down the black markets, take away what little they have, then double the amount of floggings and executions, put them on TV, broadcast them live, and sow fear, more fear.
It won't work, President Snow says.
Fear does not work.
She's engaged.
Make everything about that.
What kind of dress is she going to wear?
Floggings.
What's the cake going to look like?
Executions.
Who's going to be there?
Fear.
Blanket coverage.
Shove it in their faces.
Show them that she's one of us now.
Plutarch says they're going to hate her.
They might just kill her for you.
Brilliant.
Brilliant.
Wow.
Charlie, on that, I actually, I'm looking at the time.
I actually got to run for my next hit, but I don't even know what I could add because that's just purpose.
That's exactly what we're living through right now.
It's what the regime is going through.
So, but we're leaving through.
Okay.
Email us your thoughts.
Freedom at CharlieKirk.com.
Okay.
Stay tuned, everybody.
We got the news information that you need most.
Jack, God bless you.
Thank you, everyone, for watching, and subscribe to the podcast.
It really does help us out by hitting that plus sign.
God bless you, guys.
Speak to you soon.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk. com.