All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
April 13, 2022 - The Charlie Kirk Show
33:05
Election Fraud, Elon Musk, and the Epic Failure of COVID Lockdowns with Tom Fitton
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Voter Fraud Fight Breakdown 00:12:55
Hey everybody, today on the Charlie Kirk show, the great Tom Fitton joins us to unpack his amazing court victory.
What's going on when it comes to the voter fraud fights in these states?
What do Elon Musk and John Durham have in common?
And so much more.
Get involved with Turning PointUSA today at tpusa.com.
That's tpusa.com.
Join us on tour.
Candace Owens and I are going to Milwaukee next week.
That's tpusa.com slash tour.
You can email me your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com and support the Charlie Kirk Show at charliekirk.com slash support.
If you want to get involved with Turning PointUSA, go to tpusa.com.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
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.
Brought to you by Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage.
For personalized loan services, you can count on.
Go to AndrewandTodd.com, the wonderfulandrewandodd.com.
Hello, everybody.
Welcome back.
Email me directly, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Tom Fitton from the wonderful organization Judicial Watch joining us.
There's a lot I want to go over with him.
He's been having some extraordinary legal victories.
Here's your feel-good news of the day.
CNN Plus struggles to lure viewers in its early days, drawing fewer than 10,000 daily users.
Well, we do not have a multi-billion dollar budget or a cable channel behind us, but we do get that many listeners in about 15 minutes.
I'm telling you, legacy media is falling apart and the model is changing.
And shows like ours and people like you, because there's, look, I got this, I could talk into a camera all day long.
There's no show without you.
And CNN Plus, they have cut off, they're doing layoffs all across the board.
It's beautiful to see.
CNN Plus is a total disaster.
Okay, I want to get into this story.
I think it's just amazing.
It really is.
Who handled COVID the best?
Who handled the Fauci virus the best?
What states were the ones that were able to withstand the damage, both with death, education, businesses?
So there's a study out of the National Bureau for Economic Research.
And based on this article, and I'm reading a little bit into this, but not too much.
It seems as if they did a blended metric where they put death rates, business closures, education outputs all into one.
So they didn't just do death rates.
They didn't just do case rates.
They didn't just do business.
They put it all into one.
How they weighed it, I don't know.
But it seems to be a very nonpartisan group.
It doesn't seem to be as if this is a partisan.
So what the National Bureau for Economic Research came out and said is they ranked what states did best in response to the Fauci virus.
The National Bureau of Economic Research is an American private nonprofit research organization tied to the MIT in Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute for Technology in Harvard.
So this is as nonpartisan as it's going to get.
Okay?
The state they say that did the best, despite their ridiculous politicians, but they have great people.
Utah, second best, South Dakota.
Remember, Governor Christy Noam was just attacked from every direction for her response to the virus.
Then, interestingly, Vermont, which I could be an outlier.
I don't know how they responded to a lot of different things.
Also, a very rural state, so that's something to think about.
Then Montana, led wonderfully by our friend and supporter of Turning Point USA, Governor Gianforte.
Then number five, where, ah, North.
No, I'm sorry.
No, number two is Nebraska.
I got myself all messed up.
Number two is Nebraska, led by Governor Ricketts.
Number five was Christy Noam.
Sorry, I was going through this too quickly.
And yes, I do know the difference between Nebraska and South Dakota.
And then number six, Ron DeSantis.
Number seven, New Hampshire.
Eight, Maine, a lot of rural states.
Nine, Arkansas, and ten, Idaho.
Okay.
Well, Florida is far from a rural state.
So who are the worst?
What were the worst states when it came to handling COVID and shutting down businesses and death rates?
The very worst, New Jersey.
Actually, you could call them the not-so-fab five.
Actually, six.
Literally the bottom of the list.
New Jersey, D.C., New York, New Mexico, California, Illinois.
Six out of six of the worst responses to the Fauci virus were Democrat-controlled.
Whereas one, two, three, four, five out of six of the top best responses were Republican-controlled.
Do you see a correlation?
That's for child outcomes, for education, for business closures, for mental health, for death rates and transmission rates.
Democrat governor policies caused huge death rates, study says, ruined children's studies and destroyed businesses.
Utah, Nebraska, Montana, and South Dakota were praised by analysts for their pandemic response.
South Dakota praised?
You remember all the articles that said Christy Noam is trying to let people...
There was an article, Connor, please find it.
There is an article that said, South Dakota's experiment in human sacrifice.
I guarantee you that exists.
I know they tried to bury it.
It was an article.
If you look that up, it's Christy Noam or South Dakota's experiment in human sacrifice.
Go find that article.
I remember reading it.
But they say that South Dakota did the second best.
Ron DeSantis in Florida was the sixth best despite having multiple urban populations.
Orlando, Tampa, Miami, being the three biggest urban areas in Florida.
Not to mention Florida having a disproportionately elderly population.
And yet, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, as we take a step back, everything that we were warning about on this program, lockdown's not working, mask mandates not working, vaccine mandates not working, are now the numbers do not lie.
And coming in at the 46th worst state response, Illinois.
Illinois was the 46th worst state response.
What's 45?
Maryland.
44, Nevada.
43, Connecticut.
You see a through line here?
See kind of a theme?
41, Massachusetts, 40, Hawaii, 39, Hawaii, 38, Delaware.
Arizona got a terrible grade.
And I agree.
Arizona was way too locked down.
Arizona did not trust their citizens.
It did not embrace liberty or freedom nearly as much as it should.
But if you look at the top 20, 1, 2, 3, 4, the best 20, I should say.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.
Okay, so 18 out of 20 of the top, the best 20 responses are Republican-controlled states.
18 out of 20.
Meanwhile, six out of six of the worst are all Democrat-controlled.
There's a correlation.
Shutting down your businesses, shutting down your economy, actually ends up destroying your citizens' lives.
And this isn't hard.
And this is what's so frustrating.
We have an episode that came out exactly two years ago.
I remember exactly when we did the episode.
It was in our old old studio two studios ago.
It's kind of makeshift.
And we did an entire article, an entire podcast that said, end the lockdowns now.
And we were attacked from every single direction.
Every direction you can imagine.
Democrat New Jersey fared the worst in the United States.
That's on Phil Murphy.
Now they blame in the article nursing home deaths.
You don't think that Florida has nursing homes too?
You don't think Texas has nursing homes?
A lot of states have nursing homes.
That's not the point.
The point is, how do you manage it?
What state had the worst educational output?
Washington, D.C., California, Oregon, Maryland, Washington, Hawaii, New Mexico.
See a correlation?
This is an incredibly persuasive piece, by the way.
We're going to put this on charliekirk.com.
You guys can go to charliekirk.com for show summaries.
And you could show this to all your friends.
Lockdown economies also had closed schools.
Chart.
Lockdown economies did not have better health chart.
This is comprehensive.
It shows state by state by state.
So what states have now the highest increase in new COVID transmission?
The ones that have locked down.
Illinois, 34%.
Meanwhile, Texas is negative 48%.
And that's the last two weeks.
This list right here is precisely what Louis Brandeis said.
This is the laboratory of democracy right here.
And the lab results are in.
Your test results are in, everybody.
Whoa.
Democrats destroyed their states and Republicans allowed theirs to flourish.
Almost every day we hear about another major corporation that has gone woke.
Disney hates you and everyone should cancel Disney.
They hate families.
Disney made tons of money off of being family friendly and family safe.
Now it's time to divest from Disney.
It's a lot of companies like T-Mobile that's firing all their unvaccinated employees.
They're tormenting their employees with leftist propaganda and funding organizations who seem to hate this country.
And so I was on a mission.
I was seeing how much I was spending on my cell phone bill, how much Turning Point USA was spending on our cell phone bill.
I said, I'm so sick and tired of giving these anti-American cell phone companies my hard-earned money and our amazing donor money at Turning Point USA.
So I told my team, I said, go find the cell phone company that shares our values.
And I remember I met this guy, Glenn.
We'd run into each other a couple of times, and he was super enthusiastic, always wore this red polo, said Patriot Mobile on it.
And I saw him again at an event.
I said, okay, now you really got to sit down.
Like, let's plan some time together and talk about this.
So we had this meal in Dallas.
This was back in November.
And he laid it all out.
And I got it.
I was like, wow.
Okay.
So you're a conservative Christian cell phone provider and I don't have to pay all these woke companies.
And it just like clicked in a minute.
I said, let's partner together.
Let's have you on the show.
Let's do some things.
And that's how it all started.
So Patriot Mobile, they have plans to fit every budget.
And their U.S.-based customer support team provides exceptional customer service.
Most importantly, Patriot Mobile shares your values and supports organizations fighting for religious liberty, constitutional rights, and the sanctity of life.
So make the switch today.
I know the whole management team behind Patriot Mobile, Glenn, all of them, they support Turning Point USA.
They support us beautifully.
So you go to patriotmobile.com slash Charlie or call 972 Patriot.
People ask all the time, Charlie, what do I do?
What do I do?
Well, a good way to start is, you know, make your cell phone bill, whatever.
If you see it on your cell phone statement, you get your cell phone statement.
You might as well just say, oh, that money's going to the DNC or that money's going to Christian conservative organizations or company like Patriot Mobile.
So you get a free activation with the offer code Charlie.
They also have special discounts for veterans and first responder heroes.
It's patriotmobile.com slash Charlie or call 972 Patriot.
Join me on the Charlie Kirk show in our change to Patriot Mobile and forgetting all these woke, awful, terrible cell phone companies.
Portions of this program, the Charlie Kirk Show, are brought to you in part by Patriot Mobile.
It's patriotmobile.com/slash Charlie, patriotmobile.com/slash Charlie.
Inflation numbers are out today.
MSNBC is being very honest about the new inflation numbers.
The new consumer price index numbers are out.
Let's play that tape.
MSNBC on March inflation numbers.
Play tape.
So because of the actions we've taken to address the Putin price hike, we are in a better place than we were last month.
But we expect March CPA, CPI headline inflation to be extraordinarily elevated due to Putin's price hike.
Putin's price hike.
So let's actually put a chart on screen.
We'll put this on CharlieKirk.com.
This is inflation.
And so you look at this chart here.
You see all of that in the red?
That's Biden.
And then the last little one is Putin.
If you were even to blame Putin for it, even though the rocket ship starts to take off well before Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, Putin price hike.
Zuckerberg's Pandemic Backfire 00:03:26
It's so cringy, honestly.
It's just so hard to like hear Putin price.
It's so, and people aren't buying it, by the way.
And you have to wonder, what was the calculus by the regime?
How would they think this was going to turn out?
They don't really think that far ahead at times.
They really don't.
MSNBC Cut 41 covering inflation.
It ain't good.
When you look at these numbers year over year, you said it.
We have not been in this place in 40 years.
And the biggest increases, it's gas, it's rent, it's food, all the things you need to buy every day.
So the people who are already the most economically vulnerable are going to be hit the hardest.
8% year over year.
And I could tell you that in Phoenix, it's even higher than that at times.
At Turning Point USA, we gave a 10% across-the-board raise.
We did that to support our workers.
Many corporations aren't doing that, by the way.
And if your employer is not giving an 8% or 9% or 10% raise in that regard year over year, we did that at Turning Point USA for a reason because you're going to get actively poorer.
And you're going to get actively poor if that's happening, where it's like, wow, year over year, I'm earning less money.
Even though I'm earning the same or a little bit more, things are costing more.
Rent, travel, food.
All of that happens when you have too many dollars chasing too few goods.
Everything has skyrocketed.
Now, one of the reasons you have to believe the Democrats thought they could get away with this is they thought no one would wake up to actually want to fix our elections.
A pretty extraordinary announcement came out today, which is a great announcement for the security of our elections and the integrity of our elections.
Mark Zuckerberg.
Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, have said they will not give another $400 million for this next aid of elections.
The nonprofit that distributed most of the $350 million in donations from Zuckerberg to election officers in 2020 said Monday that it won't disperse similar donations this year after backlash from conservative suspicions that the contributions tilted the outcome of the presidential race towards Biden.
This tells me a couple different things.
Number one, it shows that the backlash that Zuckerberg has received has really bothered him, and it should bother him.
I don't know Zuckerberg's intentions.
I don't.
But what I do know is that Zuckerberg is not exactly excited about further alienating half the country.
By the way, on Facebook and Instagram, it's conservative content that performs way better than left-wing content if it wasn't for all the algorithm changes and all the games and the thumb on the scale that Facebook plays.
Instead, the Institute for Technology and Civic Life is launching a different program, dubbed the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence.
The 80 million five-year effort is intended to create a network for the nation's thousands of local officials who can apply for aid to improve their technology and processes.
It's way smaller, way longer-term, and way less controversial, still not great.
Unfortunately, years of underinvestment means that many local departments offer have limited capacity training, whatever.
But here's the kicker: the 2020 effort by Zuckerberg amid the COVID-19 pandemic fueled conservative anger.
FBI Plot and Affirmative Action 00:11:58
I love the way NBC writes this.
They're so dishonest.
And distrust of the presidential election outcome.
At least eight GOP-controlled states passed laws banning private donations.
Suspicion that contributions routinely referred to as Zuckerbucks helped Biden a Democrat has become a staple among those who believe former President Trump's election lies.
Are you NBC?
Hey, who wrote this thing?
The Associated Press?
Why don't you guys come on my show?
Would love to talk to you about the election lies.
I'll show you a video of a mule after mule after mule after a mule.
You could show me if that's okay, of where you see people at three o'clock in the morning coming out with 10 ballots, taking pictures of the ballots with latex gloves on, going up to the ballot drop boxes, stuffing them in there, taking the latex gloves off and getting back in the car and taking pictures of the ballot so they get paid.
With us right now is the head of a phenomenal organization, one of the most important organizations in America, Judicial Watch, which is fighting for the country, fighting for citizens' basic rights and rooting out corruption wherever it rears its ugly head.
Tom Fitton is with us.
Tom, welcome back to the program.
Hey, Charlie, good to be with you again.
Thanks for that gracious introduction.
Well, I mean it.
Everyone should go to judicialwatch.org and help out any way they can.
So Tom, there's a lot of topics I want to cover with you.
We'll kind of do a rapid-fire deal.
Let's start with what was called the Whitmer kidnapping case.
This is something that I believe was direct election interference.
Every single one of the defendants got off.
What do we know about this and why is it important?
Well, what we know is that there were more FBI informants involved in the plot, it looks like, than the number of actual defendants in the purported plot.
We also know that a jury in Michigan was convinced that there was no there there and that they were convinced there was entrapment by the FBI for at least two of the defendants who were let off entirely, acquitted, and two others, their charges resulted in a hung jury.
So it's a historic rejection of the FBI and the Justice Department's willingness to engage in entrapment, as you point out, in order to score political points against their political opponents, namely people perceived to be Trump supporters.
So they came into this group that were evidently saying all sorts of odd and probably inappropriate things online, but they were seen as Trump supporters and anti and those opposed to the COVID shutdowns going on there in Michigan.
And the defense made the argument that, look, these guys were not in a position to do anything and the plot only advanced in a substantive way with the intervention of FBI informants and the help of FBI informants.
And the jury bought it.
And you highlight that this was used.
You know, we can't take away the politics.
So they had this scheme that was developed by the FBI that conveniently came to a head just shortly before the November 2020 elections.
And so when those arrests were made, and the headlines were shocking.
There was this horrible plot to kidnap and kill people in order to kidnap the governor of Michigan, a Democrat hero at the time.
And so the Democratic politicians took advantage of it and used it as a cudgel against then-candidate Trump.
And, you know, it's one of those, if but for that, maybe the numbers of the, in terms of the votes might have been different in certain states.
Who knows?
Yeah, and I mean, it's just, it's a loss for the FBI, which we must focus on.
They hate losing in court.
And they lost because, not just because the case was weak, but it was fabricated.
It was an entrapment case.
And we're starting to see this with some of the January 6th defendants, that one in particular got off recently by a judge who said it's very clear that you were let into the Capitol by police officers.
Yeah.
And the question is, how many other circumstances or how many other defendants should have been treated accordingly?
Meaning, look, they were in places they weren't supposed to be, but there was no harm, no foul.
They didn't commit violence to get there.
And they were let in, as you're highlighting, by the police.
And that didn't seem to stop the Justice Department from trying to put people in jail after federal prosecutions.
So you can't distinguish or make a distinction, especially since you have some of the same FBI officials involved in the January 6th prosecutions as were involved in this Whitmer scam.
You can't make a distinction between the FBI that would put people in jail based on an FBI plot and a fake crime with the handling of some of these or many of these January 6th prosecutions.
Do you think that what happened in Michigan, because there was a weird through line between the person that was either the DA or the head FBI agent, had any connection to January 6th?
I don't think there's an explicit connection, but this is a group of people who are willing to, let's put it charitably, to go up to the line, if not over it, in prosecuting certain political opponents.
And for the deep state, Trump supporters are political opponents, and they've used January 6 as a pretext and an excuse to smear anyone who has concerns about election integrity, anyone who opposes pretty much any element of the Biden agenda or the radical left agenda that Biden's helping promote.
So you saw that with the targeting of folks who were really unable to defend themselves because this is something they were obviously easy to target, but they were opposed to the COVID lockdowns.
Oh, well, there's a useful target there.
Let's make an issue of them.
And by concocting and encouraging them to engage in this plot against Governor Whitmer.
And what I think is disturbing about this is that you had the FBI informants and the evidence is strong.
I mean, I'm not making this up, Charlie, and I know you're not, based on our just our own analysis.
I mean, BuzzFeed News has exposed this.
And, you know, BuzzFeed is no friend of conservatives, but they saw what was going on there and they've been front and center in exposing this, is that when you have the FBI encouraging criminal activity like this that otherwise wouldn't take place, you know, they give themselves pats on the back for stopping it, right?
Well, you know, that's just whistling past the graveyard because it could have gone south.
There could have been other criminal activity that took place because of the FBI's encouraging this plot.
And we're lucky nothing serious happened as a result of the FBI's machinations here.
So I want to shift gears here.
Again, it's judicialwatch.org.
If you guys want to support it, you should sign up.
You had an amazing court victory in California that I think a lot of people were relieved to see.
Tell us about it.
It's a victory against racism and a victory against bigotry and a victory against the forcing of those things.
Yeah, this is a big loss for critical victory, a critical theory, right?
Yes.
So California has a law or had a law that required public corporations in California to set aside certain corporate board slots for people based on their ethnic status, racial status, or LGBT status.
Meeting Charlie, you couldn't apply for certain board slots.
I couldn't apply.
Actually, certain minorities couldn't apply if they weren't on the approved minorities list.
And it's widely unconstitutional.
It's not only at the federal level, but the California Constitution even has even broader protections and prohibitions on this sort of race-based decision-making and hiring practices.
And I just can't believe we had to go to court in the year 2021, 2022 to argue why, on behalf of taxpayers in California, why it was illegal for California to require corporate boards, pick people according to their race and select people and hire people based on their race or, you know, other improper classifications for the purposes of hiring.
And the court agreed.
We didn't even have to go to trial on it.
You know, and separately, we had a separate case that did go to trial over a gender requirement.
So they started off saying, we're going to require gender quotas.
And then they expanded it with a subsequent law.
And everyone knew it was constitutionally suspect, but the left did whatever they want to do.
And they thought they could get away with it and see how far it would go.
And thankfully, this court judge said, you can't do this.
And we'll see what happens next.
But when you had state-ordered discrimination, really radical an approach, you know, all under the guise of diversity, right?
And when you look at the arguments, it's straight out of critical theory.
Yeah, so I guess my court rejected it.
My question is, how does that differ then from affirmative action?
Or would this actually maybe help set the precedent to reverse some affirmative action rules?
Well, you know, in theory, you could have an affirmative action program.
You say you look at a job qualification and you say, you know, look, we only have certain people of ethnicity, certain ethnicities or color or racial classifications applying for this job.
Why is that?
Are we advertising it appropriately?
Are we putting in requirements for the job that aren't necessary, but that unnecessarily kind of limit the number of people or the demographics of people who would apply?
You know, that's legitimate affirmative action, making jobs broadly available and ensuring that you're reaching out to every qualified applicant.
What's different about this, this wasn't an affirmative action.
This was a quota.
And there's a distinction between the two.
Now, sometimes affirmative actions, affirmative action programs can be effectively quotas, but you can have affirmative action programs that few would disagree with.
But I would just caution, we need to move away from race-based decision-making and hiring and stop with the racial being counting that treats people as individual as members of a group and take thereby taking away their values as individuals, which of course is what the law protects and our Constitution protects.
And that's what the court was concerned about.
You can't play these group games while ignoring the individual rights of everyone involved.
Yeah, and you led the charge in that way at Judicial Watch, and it was going to require the board seats.
It's just the whole thing.
It's such an overreach.
And it's typical California, but you guys won on that, which is just awesome.
You also have a lot of laws.
And it shows you have to fight everywhere, Charlie.
You know, too many on our side say, well, well, California's lost.
Well, no one, you know, it's America, so it's never lost.
And there's always the rule of law we can rely on.
And sometimes it doesn't work out the way we want it to work out.
But we always have to fight for our values and fight and be vigilant on behalf of the rule of law.
And right now, the left has decided that all laws against racial discrimination and other types of discrimination are on the chopping block.
Now, you know, that's an attack on the Constitution, all the federal laws and state and constitutional laws against discrimination, and it would tear the country apart.
Twitter Accountability and Lying 00:04:44
So these are serious times, and we got to stand fast.
I want to talk to you about two other things: John Durham and Elon Musk/slash Twitter.
Elon Musk and John Durham, what on earth do they have in common?
Well, you know, they're both on the wrong end of the left, you know.
And under the Trump administration, special counsels, we were all supposed to fall down and worship them, right?
Robert Mueller.
Oh, no, John Durham, he can't be trusted, and he's going overboard and prosecuting the Clinton gang, excuse me, the Biden gang.
Or I get confused sometimes as to what we're supposed to be prosecuting since they're all tied together.
You know, the same thing with Elon Musk.
You know, I don't know where he stands on politics.
You know, my guess is he has, well, the evidence is he supports free speech, which is kind of like it ought to be the price of entry in terms of public discourse these days.
But activist investors were, the left told us were the savior of the corporate world, having these activists come in and demanding accountability from corporations on issues other than the stock price.
And here we have Elon Musk doing something similar with Twitter on behalf of First Amendment values by all accounts.
And you would think he's Genghis Khan coming in and trying to destroy the internet.
But both need to do a lot, in my view.
Obviously, Durham's been slow.
Three indictments include one which resulted in a kind of a disaster of a plea deal.
The two more recent ones have been substantial.
But if they're the end of what he's doing, it's going to be week T. They're the beginning.
It could be great.
Now, Elon Musk, you know, he's putting his money where his mouth is, you know, billions of dollars of investment in Twitter to have a say by all accounts in how Twitter is run and trying to rein in, I would hope, the abuse that Twitter continues in terms of lying about why it's censoring conservatives.
And obviously, he's just censoring conservatives.
So he can't act soon enough to rein in that abuse by the corporation.
You know, I would have, my view is there's liability for the corporation, such as Twitter and these other big tech corporations, you know, not because of Section 230, but because of fraud.
You know, they're lying about what they're doing and why they're doing it in terms of censorship.
They're lying to users.
They're lying to regulators.
They're lying to shareholders like Elon Musk.
And there needs to be accountability about it for it.
So, Tom, we have about two minutes remaining.
Coming up the next hour, we have the second part of our, actually, the first part of our conversation airing with Kathy Ingelbrecht and Greg Phillips all about the 2000 meal deal, Dinesh D'Souza's upcoming film.
Not sure how familiar you are with that, but what can be done legally at this point to actually arrest some of these people that outwardly committed felonies and get to the bottom of what happened in these key states?
Well, if the evidence warrants it, there should be prosecutions at the state level.
I mean, the federal government is going to do it.
The Biden administration isn't going to undermine its own election story.
So you need honest state prosecutors and officials willing to pursue the leads and evidence that have been laid out there.
And also eliminate these opportunities for fraud that were put in place largely in 2020 that resulted in what I consider to be a ruined election that people don't have confidence in.
Half the country thinks was rigged with good reason.
And we can't have disruptions like that anymore.
The least we can, you know, if everyone was being honest on both sides and we would work together to make sure that we're confident that the votes are counted of eligible voters in a way that reasonably protects against fraud.
One side has zero interest in doing that.
In fact, they want to eliminate the few remaining bars to fraud or making it hard, making the few remaining ways to make it more difficult to engage in fraud.
It's well said.
Tom Fitton from JudicialWatch.org.
Tom, thank you so much.
Keep up the great work.
And we've got to have you back on if Durham ever really moves.
I'd like to have you back on and unpack that with you.
Thank you so much.
Thank you so much for listening, everybody.
Email me your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com and support the Charlie Kirk Show at CharlieKirk.com slash support.
Thank you so much for listening.
God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk. com.
Export Selection