All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
July 21, 2022 - The Charlie Kirk Show
33:36
The Curious Case of Ray Epps with Darren Beattie and David Sokol
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Defending The American Dream 00:12:25
Hey, everybody, today on the Charlie Kirk Show.
Darren Beattie and David Sokol join us.
David Sokol talks about the American dream and why we need to protect and preserve it.
Darren Beattie joins us.
Talk about the curious case of Ray Epps.
As always, email me your thoughts, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Support the Charlie Kirk Show at CharlieKirk.com/slash support.
Come to our Student Action Summit in Tampa, Florida, just hours away, tpusa.com/slash SAS.
It's still not too late to get your tickets.
That's tpusa.com/slash SAS.
Biggest speakers in the movement.
Trump and DeSantis will be there.
tpusa.com slash sas.
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 the Loan Experts I Trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandTodd.com.
Young people feel as if the American Dream is a fiction.
Not all young people, but many young people do.
I spent a lot of time on college campuses.
I was at Berkeley.
I was at CU Boulder this last semester, and they feel as if it's out of grasp.
And somebody who is definitely qualified to talk about the American Dream is David Sokol.
He's the chairman and CEO of Teton Capital, and he's really a business legend on Wall Street.
And he has a fabulous new book out called America in Perspective: Defending the American Dream for the Next Generation.
David Sokol joins us right now.
Welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.
Thank you, Charlie.
I appreciate you having me on.
So tell us, why did you write the book?
You know, trying to save the American Dream, that's quite a task.
Yeah, you know, I was a rural, lower-income kid, and my father, his parents were immigrants from Poland.
And he always emphasized to us the American dream.
And that, you know, the reason we're here, the reason we're in this wonderful country is that we're now Americans and that you have to decide what you want to do, but you're going to have to work for it.
And I had that opportunity and through a lot of good fortune over the years, was able to become a CEO in the early 80s and continue in the energy industry throughout my career.
And we've really started losing sight of what's made America great all these years.
And it's our foundation as our Constitution.
It's our foundation as we the people, as our founding fathers put together.
And so Adam Brandon and I really felt that it was time.
This book's not about us.
I mean, there's a small percentage in there that just describes who we are, but it really takes us through this capitalistic meritocracy called America, the self-healing nation that was formed 246 years ago and how important it is.
In fact, the American Dream is alive and well today.
And in fact, America is that exceptional nation that we all know it is.
So many of our students would kind of disagree.
They're in debt.
They studied things that don't matter to find jobs that don't exist.
Homeownership affordability is kind of out of grasp.
And they're working hard.
I mean, I could just tell our employees here at Turning Point, they're getting poorer every month because of inflation.
I'm afraid we're losing that kind of, you know, the grasp of the American Dream.
What do you think we need to do to recapture that?
And do you believe the American Dream is still alive?
I do believe the American Dream is very much alive.
And what we have to do to recapture it is, first of all, the young people in this country, unfortunately, haven't been given courses in civics.
Our public school system for years hasn't taught much about our Constitution at all.
I mean, you've got a congressman, Ocasio-Cortez, who described the three branches of government as the Senate, the House, and the President's office.
You know, that's embarrassing around the world when we've got congressmen that apparently haven't even read the Constitution.
We have to get back to the basics.
Our founding fathers presented us with this opportunity that requires consensus.
They established the Constitution to separate our three branches of government, to have checks and balances, and to amend our Constitution, take 75% of the states to ratify it.
That was consensus.
They recognized that there'd be different populations in each state, so they only had two senators in each state, even though the House is then proportionally represented.
Today, we've got through the Obama administration and now the Biden administration, they think somehow that we switch to a parliamentary or an authoritarian government where they can just dictate the changes.
Because of that, they're shutting down the use of fossil fuel without any legislative authority to do so.
They've caused this enormous inflation through overstimulating the economy.
I mean, what President Trump had to do when COVID first started to protect American businesses, particularly small businesses, given that the government was shutting them down, perhaps was necessary.
In hindsight, it might have been more money than we probably should have spent.
But the amount of money that President Biden threw at it immediately getting into office was purely political.
It was purely, look, I can do this too.
I can throw money at things.
And by the way, I'm going to shut down fossil fuel.
We've got to get back to forcing consensus amongst our folks.
And by the way, a shout out to Joe Manchin because he seems to be the only Democratic senator that understands the criticality of the filibuster and how it creates consensus to actually force us to think these things through and not just ram them through.
So what do you think the message to young people should be?
Because I could tell you, they're incredibly cynical right now.
The American dream of the country that you grew up in is out of reach.
I mean, we have 25 to 30% inflation of a generation that is $100,000 to $150,000 in debt.
So what do you think our message should be from a public policy perspective?
Because I can understand why a lot of them want to go vote to the left.
They've been lied to.
They shouldn't have gone to college, many of them.
They have meaningless degrees.
Things are super expensive.
What do you think our message should be?
Their message should be is to learn from what's happened to you.
Those of you who get conned in to go get going to get an English degree and spending $200,000 to get it just because the government would loan you the money.
That's an example.
When government tries to interfere in this free enterprise, capitalistic meritocracy of America, they make a mess.
And, you know, I had to work my way through college.
There wasn't an opportunity to borrow money.
And my dad made it very clear to me: make sure you study something that will pay you for that education and then work hard.
Today, we went through this period where government, no one would loan you $250,000 to buy a Camry if the Camry is worth $23,000.
But somehow you can go to a very expensive Ivy League school and the government will loan you a quarter of a million dollars to get an English degree, or you can go to the University of Nebraska and get it for $15,000.
That's just silly, but that's how government looks at things.
They don't put rationale.
So young people need to stop and say, how did I get into this situation?
Because the American dream is there for them.
But you have to make good decisions on who our elected representatives are.
You've got to make good decisions in your life.
Government's not going to bail you out.
Yeah, I hear you.
But you got a whole generation that's 28 and 29 and 30, and they've been conned by their parents, right?
I mean, the parents are the ones that told them to go to college.
And just to tell you what I'm dealing with every day, it's such widespread cynicism, right?
They see, for example, billionaires got $600 billion wealthier during the lockdown.
Do you think that should be something we should talk about?
Well, I think we should talk about it.
I think we should praise success.
And that's the problem.
We've allowed the left to turn the tide in this conversation to turn it into class warfare, turning us against ourselves.
They're trying to make us a tribal nation where, you know, as a Polish American, I'm supposed to denounce being an American and only be Polish.
Well, my parents wouldn't allow, their parents wouldn't allow them to speak Polish because my grandfather told my father, you're an American now.
I'll teach you to speak Polish after you speak perfect English because that's the language of our country now.
And we have to get back to these simple, simple things.
And parents need to understand that when they teach their kids, it isn't every child does not need to go to college.
Some kids like to be outdoors.
Some like to be welders.
Some like to be electricians, construction workers.
There's all kinds of, you know, some people want to be artists.
The American dream isn't just about wealth.
But what we shouldn't do is criticize those who make a great deal of money by participating in our capitalistic system.
That's what a capitalistic meritocracy is.
It isn't perfect, but it's lifted the economies of the entire world, and we're only 5% of that world.
So something I want to explore with you, and I agree with everything you're saying, is the sustainability of a capitalist meritocracy, because you are going to have winners and you are going to have losers, and then you're going to have people that are going to try to mobilize the losers to have resentment against the winners.
I just don't know how sustainable it is long-term.
I know you addressed that in the book because you're going to have people that just want to hate those that have.
And it's very hard politically to go against that, especially when they misrepresent us as a democracy when we're not.
The book is America in Perspective: Defending the American Dream for the Next Generation by David Sokol, who is a legend in more ways than one.
I encourage everyone to pick up a copy.
And for young people, yes, the American dream is still alive and well.
Hey, everybody.
This common sense is brought to you by the folks at secondvote.com, amazing people who are fighting back against woke corporations.
Subscribe now at secondvote.com, promo code Charlie.
Good afternoon.
I'm Rebecca Hatfield, president of Second Vote.
We've had uniquely American common sense since 1776, but now we're in the age of common nonsense.
Today's nonsense comes from the big corporations fighting the Supreme Court.
They can't accept the conservatives have won three huge victories.
So they're trying to overpower the court's legitimate decisions.
And they're using your hard-earned dollars to fund it.
On life, the court finally overturned Roe versus Wade.
So some companies are paying for employees to travel to states where they can get an abortion.
It's the usual suspects like Target, Starbucks, and Dick Sporting Goods, but also others like Macy's, Netflix, and Airbnb.
On the Second Amendment, the court clarified that we have a constitutional right to carry a firearm.
So 200 CEOs signed a letter demanding gun control.
It's just common sense that you have the right to carry a firearm everywhere.
But woke liberals don't want you to be able to protect yourself.
On Religious Liberty, the court ruled that, of course, a high school football coach has the right to pray after games.
So woke CEOs promised to further remove religion from our lives.
HR policies will stop employees from celebrating their faith at work.
And big tech will continue to censor and silence Christian voices.
These crucial issues are why Second Vote does the research to expose big corporations by scoring hundreds of companies on traditional American values.
And we want you to use Second Vote research to make better choices with your money.
So please make sure to arm yourselves every day with the knowledge you need to shop smart and stop funding the left.
I'm Rebecca Hatfield, President.
A second vote reminding you that your first vote is at the ballot box, but your second vote is with your wallet.
Make sure you go to secondvote.com and subscribe now using promo code Charlie for just $40 for a whole year.
That's secondvote.com, promo code Charlie.
With us is David Sokol, who is the author of a fabulous new book, America in Perspective.
I encourage all young people, especially, to purchase a copy about the American Dream, Defending the American Dream for the Next Generation.
So David, I want to ask you what from a public policy standpoint should be done here?
Your Second Vote Is With Wallets 00:04:35
I mean, we have out-of-control inflation.
You've been in the business world for decades and have been a remarkable success.
Have you ever seen inflation like this post-1970s?
And what does that mean for the future of the American dream?
No, I haven't.
I lived through the post-1970s.
In fact, my first mortgage on a house was 16% interest.
And it's a very dangerous thing that we have going on right now.
And it's policy-wise, I think the Federal Reserve has to continue to do what it's doing, at least until we see clear signs of the inflation coming down.
The reason I say that, it's unusual in that we also have this structural problem being created by the Biden administration to actually force energy prices up.
You know, they act that they really want to try to get gasoline prices down.
But I think realistically, I mean, I've sat in meetings where progressives have said they hope oil goes to $250 a barrel.
Are you serious?
Jeez.
And it's insane because, you know, I liken it to the fact that on energy policy, the Biden administration has put the port in in a transfusion of a body to take the bad blood out.
But unfortunately, they don't have the good blood to put in.
And so, but when you consider that energy prices are going to stay elevated well into the future under this kind of administration, inflation is going to be tough to bring down because energy affects fertilizer.
It affects farming in all kinds of categories.
And it affects transportation of every good we buy and sell.
And so it's going to be difficult, but the Fed's got to do it because there was too much money thrown in last year, $2 trillion of additional COVID relief that was unnecessary, and then a trillion dollars of infrastructure spending that's going to be administered by somebody who has never spent an hour understanding how to administer transportation funds.
That's exactly.
And so they've really got to, unfortunately, they're going to have to slow the economy quite a bit.
But it's what happens when we allow government to get out of control.
And that's what we've done.
I think the American people are prepared to stop this nonsense.
Yeah, I mean, you're right.
I want to ask you what you think that looks like slowing the economy down because that's exactly right.
I mean, we lived on this sugar high, this artificial sugar high of cheap money, I think unnecessarily for not just the last couple of years, I think almost the last decade.
And it just kind of hit, kind of hit a climax in the last year, year and a half.
And that's all, by the way, that six to seven trillion dollars of spending you just articulated is on top of a $4.4 trillion annual spending budget that the government has that is completely too big and bloated.
So that's just, that's gravy and icing on top of what we're already doing.
And I mean, so I know that predicting economic circumstances is very difficult, but I mean, forgive me if I'm being too blunt, but there's going to be some economic suffering coming here.
And in fact, it's almost necessary, isn't it?
It's already happening.
You know, unfortunately, the lower income and middle income folks, you know, every statistic I've seen says that the average middle income family pays $400 more a month today to do exactly what they did this time last year.
That's right.
Where does that money come from?
You know, it's easy for a bunch of politicians that get every benefit in the world and who can trade on inside information to look the other way.
But the average family, you know, this is a big issue.
And so, I think people are waking up that this fantasy land that government can just dictate things and everything will be okay doesn't exist.
And fortunately, the one good thing we have is this incredibly powerful capitalistic meritocracy called the American economy.
If we don't kill it, it will pull us out of this.
But we've got to get intelligent energy policy.
We have no energy policy today.
We have a political sound bike called the Green New Deal.
There is no deal, there is no detail to it.
And that's really astounding when you think that energy is the lifeblood of any economy.
And we're talking about people just saying, Let's just kill the lifeblood now and we'll figure it out later.
No one in the right mind would follow that path.
But we are.
It's ideological, is what it is, is that they don't care about the casualties or the catastrophe.
But as long as they're marching towards their utopia where they're in charge, they could rule over the ashes.
Very important book written by someone who knows about the American Dream because he lived it.
America in Perspective: Defending the American Dream for the Next Generation by David Sokol.
I wish we had more time.
Thank you so much, David, for joining us.
Thanks for having me on, Charlie.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
New York Times Puff Piece Response 00:15:42
Look, there's a must-see movie you got to check out at salemnow.com called Michelle Obama 2024: Her Real Life Story and Her Plan for Power.
Film director Joel Gilbert, I know Joel, great American, takes a deep dive into the life of Michelle Obama from Chicago to Princeton to Martha's Vineyard.
He says Michelle Obama will run for president in 2024 and base her candidacy on a life story that is more racially divisive and nearly as fictitious as that of her husband, Barack Hussein.
Check out the stunning new movie on Salem Now, Michelle Obama 2024.
Michelle is following the same formula as Barack to become president, a best-selling autobiography, the keynote convention speaker, and a voter registration organization.
First, Barack and now Michelle want to transform America.
Michelle Obama 2024, now playing at SalemNow.com.
This new movie has stunning, game-changing revelations about Michelle Obama's past.
The film director says only the truth can stop her.
Michelle Obama 2024, watch the movie on demand or buy the DVD on salemnow.com.
With us right now is Darren Beattie from the phenomenal website Revolver.news.
Darren, welcome back to the program.
There was a very bizarre piece written by the New York Times, like a puff piece defending Ray Epps, and you have a response to that piece on Revolver.news.
Walk us through it.
Yes, well, it's great to be back.
And I think it's important to start off with just letting it sink in at how bizarre it is that of all of the January 6 riot participants, the one about whom the New York Times writes a puff piece.
That's a simple, utterly sympathetic puff piece.
Poor guy.
So we have to feel sorry for him.
Like, what?
No, it's Ray Epps.
The one person caught on camera repeatedly urging people into the Capitol as early as January 5th is the one January 6th riot participant about whom the New York Times writes a sympathetic puff piece.
That's just a motivating starter to understand how bizarre this is, how dirty this is, how corrupt this is.
The New York Times gained access to this individual who had been, he's a key individual, whether no matter what you think, if you think, oh, this is some evil insurrection, he's an evil Trump supporter, then you still want to talk to him.
You still want to get to him because he's the only guy caught on camera as early as January 5th dedicated to this mission to go into the Capitol.
And if you're like me and think, okay, this is deeply fishy, you also want to talk to him.
So, the New York Times has access to this guy, very special access.
And they write a whole piece and don't think to ask the following questions.
Number one, the entire piece, there's no blanket denial of involvement with the federal government.
There's a reiteration of the very specific legalistic denial he issued through his lawyer, by the way, a 10-year veteran of the Phoenix FBI field office, saying he was never involved with law enforcement.
Well, of course, that leaves open a number of possibilities, including the Department of Homeland Security, JTTF, military intelligence, and so forth.
Okay, so no explicit blanket denial in the whole piece.
Number two, the piece describes Epps as a Trump supporter who wanted to go to Washington, D.C. to support Trump.
And just as a last-minute thing, he went with his son to D.C. because he wanted to hear Trump's speech about election fraud.
Well, the only issue with that is that this individual, Ray Epps, apparently on a last-minute whim with his son, traveled all the way from Arizona to D.C. to hear this speech, but he didn't go to the speech.
And the New York Times piece doesn't even point that out or think to explore: well, shouldn't we report on why he claims he didn't go to the speech?
It's totally non-existent in the piece.
So he doesn't go to the speech.
I don't even know that part.
Yeah.
So that's the thing.
And in fact, in the indictments against the Proud Boys, the government itself has said, oh, this is a major indicator that they had some kind of malicious intentions.
The fact that they didn't even bother going to the Trump speech.
And the additional thing about Ray Epps is not only did he travel all the way from the guy with the Trump hat, he's wearing the red Trump hat when he tells people to go into the Capitol.
And yet the man with the Trump hat doesn't even bother to listen to the Trump speech that he traveled across the country for.
And furthermore, this is very important.
And furthermore, not only does he just mosey around anywhere when he's skipping the speech, he happens to be positioned right there at the Peace Monument, which is the site of the initial breach of the Capitol.
And he's hanging out there before the Proud Boys even get there.
And it's the official story that the Proud Boys.
What a coincidence that he just happens to end up at the right place at the right time after having skipped this speech that allegedly he crossed the country to attend.
And no, no exploration of what his excuse is for this.
And then the last and most egregious omission in the piece: the piece doesn't explore where did you get this idea, Mr. Epps, to urge everyone to go into the Capitol.
And why are you so doggedly insistent on pursuing this mission when the buying temperature of the crowd was extremely negative?
In fact, it was so out of place on January 6th that the crowd immediately accused him of being a Fed.
So where did you get this idea to go into the Capitol?
No.
Which is, by the way, the central question that the January 6th committee is allegedly exploring.
And so this New York Times has access to this guy and is in a position to explore these deeply important questions to everyone, no matter what your perspective on January 6th, and instead foregoes exploring these questions and attempts a sympathy piece, which is the only sympathy piece on any January 6th participant the New York Times has ever done.
I will add to that: Epps' most wanted poster was taken down off the FBI's website.
Also, Epps whispered into somebody's ear just seconds before the barricades come down, very suspiciously.
Now, look, I will admit, I would not be able to use this in a court of law, nor could you, but it kind of gets 10 out of 10 on the Richter scale of, you know, something's up on suspiciousness, right?
It's not, it's not verifiable evidence, but it's circumstantial, where he's whispering into somebody's ear almost as if he's in on it, right, Darren?
Like there's some for there's some knowledge.
He's directing traffic with almost alpha male confidence and military precision.
And I want to replay this tape here.
This is the tape you mentioned.
This is on the night of January 5th.
I want you to listen to how he's talking, the annunciation, the almost forced nature of the words.
Again, all circumstantial.
It's a little bit subjective.
I think it's convincing for me.
Where he's surrounded by people in the streets of Washington, D.C., saying not that we need to go to the Capitol, Darren.
No, no, no, no.
He says we need to go into the Capitol.
That's a bizarre way to word it.
Play cut 274.
Tomorrow.
We need to go into the Capitol.
Into the Capitol.
Now, tragically and ironically, some of the people saying no right there actually end up going into the Capitol tomorrow, the next day.
Right.
So very people denouncing it are actually some of the people that actually end up going.
So maybe they should have kept their own gut instinct, right?
Yes.
A couple of very important things to say there.
First of all, I wish you'd had a little bit of a longer clip there.
There are two clips on January 5th where he very emphatically urges people to go into the Capitol.
And you gestured toward this quite correctly, which is the scripted, almost artificial quality of his intonation and cadence.
And both times he prefaces it in a very interesting way.
He said, I probably shouldn't say this because I'll go to rest, get arrested.
The next time he says, I probably shouldn't say this because I'll go to jail for this.
Both times, this same structure as though this is some rehearsed speech, it's a very bizarre thing.
And these are the sort of subjective aspects.
When you look at how calm he is, he's an expert in crowd control.
It doesn't look like he's really personally invested in this.
He's not somebody who's caught up in the emotions of it.
He's someone who's very methodical in the way that he conducts himself with the crowd, controls the crowd, and so forth that suggests some kind of professional operation.
And I know this is silly, but honestly, it looks like he bought that hat at some sort of third-rate store on the way.
I mean, I only say that because the majority of people who wear Trump hats, they're kind of, it's part of their identity.
They've been to many rallies with them, and it just looks very artificial, but that's a side point.
One quick thing, if I have time, just really quick and important.
You say that, oh, this the whispering in the ear and these things wouldn't hold up in a court of law.
Well, there is something that he did.
By the way, like, there's no question that he trespassed.
And there have been a number of people who have been charged simply with trespassing.
Simone Gold being one of them.
There's no question, you know, Owen Schroyer, Mark Ibrahim.
There are a bunch of people who have been charged simply for trespassing.
More serious charge, and there's a direct parallel to another January 6th case.
There's a guy called George Tanios who's facing very serious, stacked conspiracy charges.
They're charging him with conspiracy to assault an officer because his co-defendant asked him for the bear spray.
He said, is it time to get the bear spray?
And he responded, no, no, not yet.
And by responding, no, no, not yet, that is said by the government to establish a conspiracy between those two individuals to assault an officer.
There's another clip that's in the Revolver.news piece of Ray Epps telling somebody, he says, when we go in, leave this here.
Ironically, referring to a can of bear spray.
But the when we go in indicates a knowledge that they're about to go in.
And the guy he talked to actually did go into the Capitol and is one of the more egregious participants in the riot.
So the parallelism between that suggests very strongly that the same type of conspiracy case they're using to railroad an individual called Tanios is readily available to them in the Epps case.
And for whatever reason, this very vocal participant whose behavior was so egregious that he was put on the FBI Most Wanted list.
He was featured on a New York Times' own video documentary on the thing.
They don't want to use it.
And now he's the only January 6th participant about whom Adam Kinsinger has nice things to say.
And the New York Times will write puff pieces for it.
Makes you wonder what his role really was.
Darren, I'm going to ask you to speculate a little bit.
Why does Ray Epps matter so much that the New York Times has to deploy their best propagandist to frame him as a victim?
In fact, the headline of the Ray Epps story is quite fascinating.
It is how Ray Epps became the victim of a January 6th conspiracy theory.
And it had a picture of him and his wife outside of a trailer.
It says Ray Epps and his wife, Robin Epps, became the face of a conspiracy theory that rocked their lives as it spread into the mainstream.
So we're supposed to feel sorry for him, even though every other January 6th defendant gets labeled as an insurrectionist.
He has not been charged.
And there's all these articles that are being written about him.
Why does he matter so much to this equation?
Why do they have to defend him?
Well, that's a fantastic question.
And I'd like to preface the answer by reminding the audience that in the New York Times' own video documentary on January 6th, titled The Day of Rage, Ray Epps is a star.
And in fact, Ray Epps is depicted directly as one of the quote handful of rioters who plan to storm the Capitol all along.
The New York Times' own video documentary, and they're going out of their way.
They're looking for the most egregious clips that they can.
And Ray Epps appears multiple times in their very own documentary.
And this is the same outlet that later on, when Ray Epps really is clear, he's the smoking gun of the entire Fed surrender.
And, you know, people understand what an operation this was.
Now, the New York Times is all of a sudden in aggressive damage control mode.
I think they understand that the Ray Epps situation is so embarrassing and so devastating to the narrative.
And I anticipate material coming out that further undermines the official narrative and that relates to Ray Epps as January 6 cases kick into gear.
And you got maybe a reference to it in the New York Times piece itself in the reference to this text message that Ray Epps regrets.
And I think this is likely front-running even more damning evidence to come out in the coming weeks and months.
And they want to make any talk of Ray Epps that is not sympathetic so toxic that you just have to shut up.
And they're doing that.
I have to read from this story, Darren.
It says here, Ray Epps has suffered enormously in the past 10 months as right-wing media figures and Republican politicians have baselessly described him as a covert government agent who helped to instigate the attack on the Capitol last year.
Okay, just putting all that aside, New York Times, why don't you mention in your piece that he says we need to go into the Capitol repeatedly?
Why is that not mentioned?
Instead, it says, well, he regrets it.
One of the moments he regrets the most was getting near there.
They did mention Revolver.news in the New York Times, though, Darren.
Multiple times.
No, they and they had to say, oh, the obscure outlet, Revolver.news, the obscure outlet that helped to bring the case of Ray Epps to national attention and how egregious it was.
But no, it's quite something.
It's clearly a very aggressive effort at damage control.
Just another example.
So I don't think this necessarily relates to whatever, to Ray Epps' participation in the January 6th riot, but it's an interesting detail that in any other circumstance, the New York Times would include in his description of Epps.
Oath Keepers Connection Revealed 00:00:52
And that is he was the former president of the Arizona chapter of the Oath Keepers, the most condemned and vilified militia pertaining to January 6th.
Well, and also, I don't mean to cut you off, Darren, but by the way, we're going to put your book up.
You're writing the forward to the January 6th report 262.
Darren, also, when asked directly, Ted Cruz asked the FBI directly whether or not he was a Fed.
Right.
They were struck in silence.
Well, we can't answer that.
Well, why don't you say no?
I don't understand.
Darren Beatty, Revolver.news.
Check it out.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for listening, everybody.
Email me your thoughts as always.
Freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thanks so much for listening.
God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk. com.
Export Selection