All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Dec. 13, 2022 - The Charlie Kirk Show
34:47
Is Twitter a Crime Scene? with Matt Gaetz and Tom Fitton
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Accountability for RussiaGate 00:08:12
Hey everybody, Tana Charlie Kirk Show.
Tom Fitton walks through what laws were broken by the FBI and DHS for what they did with Twitter.
And then Matt Gates and I talk about the Twitter files and then have an interesting conversation about who should be the next speaker of the House of Representatives.
You don't want to miss it.
Email us or thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Get involved with Turning PointUSA today at tpusa.com and get involved with AmericaFest.
Come to AmericaFest this weekend.
The biggest speakers in the whole movement, Tim Poole, Steve Bannon, Matt Walsh, Candace Owens, A-MfST.com.
That's amfest.com.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country.
He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
Turning point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Brought to you by the Loan Experts I Trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandTodd.com.
Joining us now is one of the most important people in the conservative movement, one of the most influential, and one of the most, let's just say, powerful is one way to say it, but they just they are so results-driven and oriented, and I love them.
It's Judicial Watch.
Tom Fitton joins us right now.
Tom, welcome back to the program.
Hey, Charlie, good to be with you.
Appreciate the good word.
I mean it.
So, Tom, walk us through your analysis of the Twitter files.
Most specifically, what, if any, laws were broken by our federal government?
Oh, well, there were, I think, four batches of Twitter files put out there.
And as it relates to government intervention in Twitter censorship activities, you have two categories.
You had these regular meetings taking place with the FBI and DHS and who knows, the Office of Director of National Intelligence prior to the election.
And they've been cagey as to what those meetings were about.
But the context around that time, obviously, was the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, but not by not only Twitter, but by Facebook and others.
So the question is: were they telling or suggesting Twitter to take this material down?
It's not clear that happened, but certainly regular meetings with a private company to persuade or talk about deleting or censoring any material would raise significant First Amendment concerns just generally.
But more recently, one of the more recent batches, I think it was either batch three or batch four, you saw that the FBI specifically asks tweets be taken down.
And that to me raises significant legal concerns.
You know, I'm no lawyer, but I've been doing this too long and I've been doing this longer than I care to admit to in terms of figuring out what the FBI is supposed to do and what it's able to do.
And what it's not able to do is to track the social media accounts of individual Americans for just because they don't like what they're saying about election debates and then go to a private company and get them to take it down.
That ought to be the subject of a serious criminal investigation.
The victims of that type of activity may have civil claims against the FBI and anyone else involved in this.
And I just saw in just the news over with our friend John Solomon, he highlighted the deposition testimony in the Missouri and other lawsuits about Twitter censorship or big tech censorship of this FBI special agent, Mr. Chan, out in San Francisco.
And he said these censorship requests were being approved at the highest levels before they went to places like Twitter.
So that's a real major revelation.
And there ought to be heck to pay.
Yeah.
So Tom, you were one of the leading voices and Judicial Watch was one of the only organizations to uncover the nonsense around RussiaGate.
I believe it was your lawsuit that actually got us the Peter Struckstroke smirk text messages.
I could be wrong, but I know you guys were involved in some of the discovery there and some of the FOIA requests.
But the same blueprint, the same behavior that they used for RussiaGate seems that they now used for Twittergate in 2020, which is we are going to use the intelligence agencies to then have third-party actors, whether it be Perkins Cooey, whether it be a dossier, whatever it might be, they're still calling the shots, but they do it a step removed.
So Tom, failure to hold people accountable for what they did with RussiaGate, I think is directly correlated with this behavior that we saw with Twitter.
Yeah.
And in this case, you had the Trump administration kind of taking a step back.
And it does go back to Russia Gate because the Trump administration or folks within the Trump administration were scared as a result of the ferocious attack on Trump over 2016 and his election.
And they bought into Hookline and Sinker the idea that the Russians colluded and interfered in our election in a substantial material way.
And in response to that, they took it upon themselves to police the internet and start evidently here targeting Americans for censorship through Twitter and such.
And so these are deep state actors who made up crap against President Trump and then used the resulting political blowback to continue to censor Americans they didn't like.
And one of the dangers is that it's escalated that they did it on the sly in 2020, but now they're doing it in a forthright manner under the Biden administration, where you have the White House calling in the heads of these big tech companies and being quite blatant and brazen in asking them to censor Americans about issues that get in the way of their political agenda.
I want to play a piece of tape here of Yoel Roth, the degenerate boy king who is the de facto CEO of Twitter and had the power that SARS, Caesars, dictators, and despots hundreds of years before would only dreamed of, the ability to shut people up and manipulate news cycles and be able to really configure what people's opinions are about pressing issues.
Let's go to this one here.
Yoel Roth saying in the weeks before, between Election Day and January 6th, Twitter moderated 140 individual tweets just from Trump.
And now we know it was the FBI that was pushing him to do it, play cut four.
The weeks leading up, in the weeks between Election Day and January 6th, Twitter moderated hundreds.
I think the final number ended up with like 140 separate tweets from just at real Donald Trump that violated various policies.
He was good at that.
And so he's bragging about the volume of censorship.
Tom, your thoughts?
He's being, the documents show he's not telling the truth.
The challenge that Twitter had was that Donald Trump was not in violation of its rules, and they had to come up with new reasons and pretexts to censor him.
And ultimately, they came up with a rule that applied only to him, Donald Trump.
He was censored not because of what he said, it was because he was Donald Trump, and they opposed him for years.
Saving Preborn Lives Today 00:03:28
You see this in the material.
So they didn't weren't moderating his content.
They were opposed to his content and figuring out ways and making up rules on the fly to censor it.
So you had this outrageous election interference prior to 2020, and then he's in a political fight about how the election is going to be resolved, that those disputes are going to be resolved.
They were upset about what happened on January 6th, but the problem was he hadn't done anything that was in violation of their rules.
And you can see they acknowledged that, but they said, well, we're going to take these tweets down or we're going to suspend his account because of what he's been saying for four years.
Incredible.
And I want to go back to you, Charlie, because I see they were lying about you.
They were.
They were lying about Dan Bongino.
And I tell you, it's one thing to lie to you.
And, you know, I don't know, I'm sure you'll be consulting lawyers as to what actions you can take.
We are.
But when they lie to shareholders, when they lie to federal agencies, and when they lie to Congress, and they lie to users about how they're censoring people, that raises a whole host of other legal issues outside of criminality by the government, but potential misconduct, both civil and criminal by the prior Twitter management.
What if I told you you could save a baby's life for just $28?
Well, it's true.
Pre-born is a ministry doing just that with the help of people just like you by offering free ultrasound sessions to pregnant women and girls who might otherwise choose to end their pregnancies.
We know that pregnant girls and women who can see their babies on ultrasound are far more likely to choose life.
Your gift today can save babies' lives.
Just $28 can give a money who is abortion-minded the chance to see the truth of the baby that is growing inside her.
$140 can do this for five girls and women.
And a $15,000 gift will provide an ultrasound machine that will save lives for years to come.
Whether you want to save one baby or five or hundreds, that opportunity is just a phone call or click away.
So check it out right now at charliekirk.com.
That's right, charliekirk.com and click the pre-born banner.
That is charliekirk.com and click on the pre-born banner.
Call 833-850-BABY 833-850-2229 or give online at charliekirk.com.
That is the pre-born banner at charliekirk.com.
And the banner is right there.
Your gift saves lives.
And look, you guys can help out, save five babies today at preborin.com, preborin.com.
The money goes where it matters.
Save babies and souls.
Don't just be pro-life, but act on those pro-life beliefs.
It's very important at Christmastime to save babies' lives.
So check it out right now at charliekirk.com.
That's charliekirk.com.
Your gift of $140 provides a free ultrasound session for five young women in unplanned pregnancies.
80% of these women will choose life when they see the ultrasound image of their babies.
Give the gift of life this Christmas season.
CharlieKirk.com and click on the banner.
Criminal Implications of Censorship 00:16:03
You mentioned crimes committed by our government.
I believe one of the reasons why we are seeing people on the conservative side get angrier and angrier is we see citizens have to be indicted and put in prison for crimes they did not commit.
They have to see their apartments raided for things they did not do.
James O'Keefe, Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump.
The list goes on.
And yet we see blatant, naked, proud criminality by our government.
What can possibly be done to hold the crimes of the government accountable?
Well, we have to use the tools available to us under the law to end the Constitution for accountability and a check.
And there are a variety of tools ranging from impeachment from Congress to funding the fights in Congress.
Also, you have civil claims that individual citizens can bring.
And hopefully there are honest administrative employees, people in the executive branch in the law enforcement area, who are willing to look at their own.
But as we know, that's been almost a fool's gold in terms of looking for that to happen because the Justice Department and the FBI, in my view, are irredeemably compromised.
And we need to think about how we start over in terms of organizing them or in the case of the FBI, maybe even disbanding them and figuring out other ways to enforce federal law through an investigative agency.
You guys have done a little bit of this.
You've done it a lot, I should say, but some of it's been successful where the American people can technically go to the courts and say, my government is breaking the law.
But those are tough lawsuits, aren't they?
They take time, they take money, and the government almost always seems to get away with it.
Well, sometimes yes, sometimes no.
You know, you win some, you lose some.
In California, you know, they have this broad liberal standing require position that taxpayers can challenge illegal conduct by the government, misuse of tax dollars for illegal behavior, you know, illegal activity.
And they had quotas in California they were trying to impose on private boards of directors.
And we went and sued under this theory of taxpayer standing, and we won.
So, you know, there are opportunities even in blue states to enforce the rule of law.
And certainly, you know, the example of Judicial Watch is we're famous for FOIA, right, Charlie?
I mean, just think about that.
Let's take a step back.
We've got this gargantuan Leviathan government, billions and billions of dollars.
But if they don't give Judicial Watch documents, those government agencies have to go into court when we sue and explain to the court why they're not giving us the documents or when they're going to give them to us.
And they have to explain if they're withholding anything, why it is they're withholding it.
And I mean, that's an awesome, awesome leveling of power between the American people and their government.
So this is why the left hates the rule of law.
So, you know, those things that seem challenges to us, we know what needs to be done and we should embrace what the left is attacking.
Embrace the rule of law.
Embrace the idea that the courts provide some check on the system.
Embrace Congress's powers under the Constitution to not spend money where it's being used and misused and abused.
And of course, embrace our core constitutional rights, which are God-given.
The Constitution actually just codifies what God has granted us, such as the First Amendment rights, free speech, association, and to petition our government.
That's all part of the First Amendment.
The left would have you believe, would have you forget about those two second ones, the association and the petition your government.
That's a core right, too, which is what this whole Twitter fight's been about.
They don't want us to criticize the government.
That's right.
Well, I think there needs to be a flurry of lawsuits very soon.
And I'm not sure what the success can be, but it should be, it needs to be repudiated and not tolerated if a government agency by proxy uses a private company to do what they themselves specifically cannot do.
We got a lawsuit already underway in California against the Secretary of State's office there.
They were getting Twitter to take down tweets, but specifically with Judicial Watch, they got YouTube to take down a video of mine about Judicial Watch's work, Judicial Watch video, just before the election.
And so we sued the Secretary of State's office for that violation of our civil rights.
So we're not standing idly by and just complaining about it.
We're going to court to figure out what went on and hold them accountable where we can.
That's what we need to do.
Tom, thank you so much.
Keep up the great work with Judicial Watch.
And if you want to represent me, just shoot me a text.
We'll talk.
Thanks.
Rents are soaring at unprecedented highs.
If you're renting or have a friend or family member that is, now is a great time to make the move to homeownership.
Look, you got to own renting, that's great reset stuff.
Andrew Del Rey and Todd of Akian at Sierra Pacific Mortgage have helped so many people make that leap from renting to owning with lots of programs that offer first-time buyers assistance with little to no down payment needed.
I encourage you right now to visit my buddies, their website.
They're great guys.
They're Christians.
They're conservatives.
They love the Lord.
AndrewNTodd.com right now.
The thing I love about these guys is it's not about the transaction.
They're helping you create a plan to help you reach your goals.
Give them a call or go to their website, andrewandTodd.com.
With today's still historically low interest rates, it's easier than you think to become a homeowner.
I've relied on them and producer Andrew has as well.
I highly recommend you take action now.
And if you knew someone paying rent, tell them about Andrew and Todd.
Go to andrewandtodd.com and tell them the Charlie Kirk Show sent you.
Joining us now is Matt Gates.
He's a fighter.
He loves his country and he's terrific.
Matt, I'm going to see you this weekend at America Fest.
Looking forward to it.
Oh, man, there's nothing like Phoenix in the winter.
So I can't wait.
We always get to shape the vision.
We're able to shape the future.
And that's going to be a lot of patriots.
And I'm looking forward to being there.
So, Matt, later on, I want to talk to you about the House leadership kind of contest and race and where we agree and where we might not agree.
But we'll do that in a second.
I first want to talk about Twitter.
You were specifically named by the degenerate boy king, Yoel Roth, pushing internally to ban you following January 6th.
Your reaction, Matt.
Well, it's no surprise that the woettopians that want to define the very nature of the truth itself didn't like something I said.
And what's interesting about the reference to me is that there was no violation of Twitter policies.
And so they were trying to use this awesome power that Twitter has to really shape the discussion that we have throughout the world and in this country.
And they wanted to ban me despite any violation of those rules.
And when we see that through the context of what they did to you, basically just trying to suppress your reach because you're effective, you see a common thread.
If you were an effective conservative voice on Twitter, they were first identifying you as the problem and then subsequently trying to figure out how to torture their own set of rules to try to constrain that.
I believe that this evidence unlocks a ton of litigation opportunity for state attorneys general to go after Twitter for violating their own terms of service and engaging in fraud on the consumers.
The boy king, cut six, Yoel Roth confessing he's deeply terrified by us, Matt, Trump supporters, play cut six.
But what are you worried about these Twitter files?
It's terrifying.
All of a sudden, we apply a misinformation label to Donald Trump's account, and I'm on the cover of the New York Post.
And that is a deeply terrifying experience.
And I say this from a position of unquestioned privilege as a cis white male.
Like the internet is much scarier and much worse for lots of other people who aren't me, but it was pretty f ⁇ ing scary for a long time.
Trump supporters are scary.
And if it wasn't for him coming in benevolently from the heavens, Matt, the Twitter internet would be much scarier.
Matt, your reaction.
Oh, I'm so glad he was able to disclaim all of his privileges there.
The one privilege he didn't disclaim was the privilege that they had to try to take people out of the digital world with no appeal, with no notice, and with their CEO, Jack Dorsey, lying to Congress, which is a crime, by the way, that in a just world would be thoroughly evaluated.
But instead, what you have are these folks who sit around and believe that they have the power to just cancel you, to limit your ability to get your ideas out there.
And look at what's going on in our country right now with all these close elections and close races.
If they're able to just shave down maybe a little Charlie Kirk in Arizona or maybe not allow our message to reach some of those key voters who might not have been engaged in politics otherwise, then you really get to a circumstance where the terms of service on Twitter and the whims of these crazy people become more important than the values that undergird our Constitution.
It's why I take a very aggressive approach to the utilization of antitrust laws so that we can break up some of these entities.
And then you know what will happen if you break them up?
You'll actually get the Google files and the YouTube files and the meta files where this stuff that's going on in Twitter is going on in all those other.
So here's my fear.
A year ago, Matt, I would have sang that song in unison with you.
But now that Twitter is owned by Elon Musk, I could see Democrats want to use that break it all up strategy, but they won't actually enforce it against Meta or Google.
They'll just use it as a way to go against Elon.
Is that a fear you might have?
No, because Twitter is actually a far smaller business.
It actually has a far less impact on the competitive marketplace than when you see the vertically integrated approach that Amazon takes, when you see the preferencing on the Apple Store, when you see what Google has done in search.
So I think those.
It pales in comparison.
You're clear.
Those are really the big forces.
I mean, Google is nearly a trillion and a half dollar company.
I'm just approximating.
I think that's about right.
Twitter, based on the purchase, was an overly inflated $44 billion purchase.
And so that proves your point.
So from an oversight perspective, and this will kind of transition us eventually to where I want to get your opinion on it.
But what can Republicans do coming into January about these Twitter files?
Well, I think the first thing we have to ascertain is whether or not the testimony we've already received was just untruthful or untruthful with malice and intend to lie.
And so I think that there is thorough review that is actively ongoing right now to get into the documents that have been produced by Twitter, the testimony that has been given by their executives, and then to bounce that off of what we've learned.
And there may be criminal implications to that.
And Congress may have to make a referral on that, which is typically what happens when Congress feels aggrieved as a result of people lying.
Beyond that, I don't think you're going to get any of the election interference charges that some are calling for because the Federal Election Commission, in response to a complaint I filed, said all of this is legal, actually.
That Twitter is allowed to discriminate against some viewpoints and is allowed to shadow ban people based on their ideology and that that's an appropriate action for a company.
I certainly don't think that's true.
So it may be as much legislating around some of these issues as much as it is ensuring that there's a regulatory action because there may not be a regulatory violation of law.
I do think there's good eaten, as I said earlier, for state attorneys general who can have fraud claims, who can have deceptive and unfair trade practices claims.
In Florida, we have a deceptive and unfair trade practices statute.
Most states do.
And I think that that's going to be a very fruitful space for litigation.
So I want to play cut five here.
The boy king says that one of the reasons Trump was banned because of his own trauma.
Play cut five.
The events of the sixth happen.
And if you talk to content moderators who worked on January 6th, myself included, the word that nearly everybody uses is trauma.
We experience those events, not some of us as Americans, but not just as Americans or as citizens, but as people working on sort of how to prevent harm on the internet.
And we saw people dead in the Capitol.
Who did they see dead in the Capitol?
Yeah, I mean, were they traumatized by Ashley Bolt?
And I was going to say, I mean, based on what we now know, Ashley Babbitt, who was, in my opinion, illegally and immorally assassinated by a black, I think the Secret Service, Capitol Police, whatever.
I think he was Capitol Police.
Capitol Police.
Yeah.
And Michael Bird, is that right?
Anyway, and he gets away with it, no investigation, and then Republicans defend him.
As far as Officer Brian Sisnik, I believe he actually died afterwards for unrelated health complications and reasons.
To this day, I guarantee if you take a poll, SickNick, thank you.
If you take a poll, people still think that there were like dozens of police officers that were murdered that day.
Just not true.
Anyway, so, but he says it was my own personal trauma.
Matt, this goes to your point about there was way too much power in this person's hand.
Way too much.
And then you have DHS, DNI, and the FBI having weekly meetings.
And one of the Slack channels, Matt, he's so casual about it.
He basically tells his other buddy that was working there, hey, I got to go to the Aspen Institute and do this stuff.
Can you fill in for me on one of our meeting today with the FBI?
And it struck me because this was a regular occurrence.
This was like having an HR, just kind of like, okay, we got this calendar thing.
The FBI is coming in.
They got their badges.
This wasn't something remarkable.
It was routine.
And I can tell you there's great interest on the Judiciary Committee to ascertain the content of those discussions.
And you know, Charlie, just like I do, that in a lot of cases, that's the DOJ people and the FBI people auditioning for their next jobs with big tech.
Well, that's exactly what they're doing.
There is a revolving door between DOJ and big tech.
It's how they get paid.
It's a down payment for the big bucks because when they work at DOJ, they're earning $75,000, $80,000 a year, which is a nice wage, but they want to go earn $500,000, $600,000, $700,000 a year.
And that's how they audition.
Sorry, Matt, to interrupt you.
No, you see it with James Baker himself.
You see him go from being one of the kind of deep state operatives around the Trump-Russia hoax to then appearing in Twitter and scrubbing information that would have demonstrated the culpability of the people who were violating the terms of service and departing from the public statements of the company regarding censorship.
So it's oftentimes the same people just wearing different hats.
But we want to know what was said in those meetings.
And particularly when you had the FBI and DOJ trying to convince Twitter and Meta for that matter, that certain information derogatory to the Biden family was Russian disinformation.
We're going to have to get to what the actual basis is for that.
And it goes to the clip you played where Mr. Roth is talking about his personal trauma.
The Kevin McCarthy Speaker Vote 00:07:04
Well, I don't think that our access to the digital world ought to depend on how some woketopian in Silicon Valley is experiencing their personal trauma on that particular day.
There ought to be verifiable standards.
If we aren't going to break up these companies, and I wouldn't suggest we break up Twitter quite yet, there should be some sort of regulation more akin to a public utility rather than an entity that's just able to act on these whims.
And while it's certainly a great thing that Elon Musk is putting all this information out to the country, we should not rest on the notion that, well, Elon owns Twitter, so everything's okay now.
There's a lot of this discourse that goes on outside of Twitter.
And Twitter fell was in bad hands, might now be in good hands, but it could fall back into bad hands.
And so I think we need to have a standard that is transparent, where people have an appeal process.
And that way there'll be greater confidence that the conversation going on in the digital square is in fact a legitimate one, not some operation by the FBI.
No one voted for Yoel Roth.
No one knew he even existed.
And he had more power than the elected that the sovereign voluntarily gave power to.
That's wrong.
I don't care what your political affiliation is.
It's wrong that some brat who's also a degenerate, by the way, and writes about really weird and creepy stuff is able to police speech like that.
It's immoral.
It's unconstitutional.
It's a civilizational issue.
You got to walk me through the strategy for 1-3 because so 1-3, just for everyone knows, Speaker of the House vote, Matt has come out against Kevin McCarthy and has said, under no circumstance am I going to vote for McCarthy.
And so what's the plan?
What's the strategy?
Who do you think should be Speaker, Matt?
We need a name.
Well, I would vote for Jim Jordan for Speaker.
I'd vote for Andy Biggs.
There's actually probably 221 of the 222 that I'd at least be open-minded about.
It's ridiculous to assume that only Kevin McCarthy can lead the Republican conference.
And I think more important than the individual are the rules and the values and the strategy that the House of Representatives will have on the 4th of January and beyond.
Seven of my colleagues has signed a letter that lay that out in technicolor.
They want single subject.
They want a plan on spending.
They want conservatives on key committees.
And they want the motion to vacate the chair that existed for centuries until Nancy Pelosi changed it.
McCarthy seems to prefer the Pelosi approach, not the Thomas Jefferson approach.
I agree.
So what you're saying, though, is that potentially it's not about Kevin.
It's about if these concessions can be made, then maybe a deal could be struck.
Is that right?
Well, what is disheartening and what led me to my view that I don't think Kevin's going to be our speaker is that Kevin has said under no circumstance will he consider the Jeffersonian motion to vacate.
He is only going to agree to something.
So I'm ignorant on this.
What is motion to vacate the chair?
Sorry to interrupt, Matt for a short time.
Yeah, for centuries, any member of Congress could call a vote of no confidence on the Speaker of the House, and all members would have to cast that vote and it would determine whether or not that speaker would continue.
Now, John Boehner got removed when Mark Meadows did that because he realized that members were going to have to take a tough vote or vote against him.
So it's a mechanism to keep the speaker accountable to the membership.
And we're not asking for crazy things.
We just want to pass appropriations bills separately.
We want to have 72 hours to read the bills.
And the fact that Kevin McCarthy has been recalcitrant against the Jeffersonian motion to vacate disqualifies him from consideration in my eyes and in the eyes of a growing number of House Republicans.
I guess the counter argument, and I'm sure you guys can figure this out, is Wona just turn every day someone could do a motion to vacate the chair?
Or does it take a certain amount of votes or does it go to voice vote?
Could it potentially derail the business of Congress?
I don't know.
As Elaine.
I guess it could, but in hundreds of years, it was only used like less than five times.
So that would defy history.
Also, like if the Democrats did that every day, if every day we had the prayer, the pledge, and the motion to vacate, I mean, I could see them do that.
Kevin McCarthy's stronger.
By the way, if they did that, there's no way any Republican could vote for a Democrat motion to vacate.
And so I think it could actually be a unifying force if used by the Democrats, but it's an accountability measure for Republicans who feel like otherwise Kevin will lie to us.
So the fear that I have and other people have is: okay, let's say it goes to 1-3.
You guys say we're not voting, and then it goes to conference, and then we're just supposed to hope it gets sorted out there.
Matt, I have very little faith in kind of hope as a strategy right now.
So give me some confidence, give our audience some confidence that that circus will result in a stronger country.
I will point the audience to a piece that was just published in Politico this morning, busting the unity speaker bubble.
So this totally debunks the hoax that somehow like Fred Upton or some moderate Republican is going to be speaker.
It debunks the hoax that it's going to be a Democrat speaker.
We will get to a Republican speaker.
Now, it might not be on the third.
There might be a slight delay, but I would rather it take a little bit longer and get it right to just coordinate Kevin McCarthy.
You acknowledge, but do you at least acknowledge there is a risk?
There's a risk that this thing could get out of control.
I mean, the Unit Party would love nothing more.
I mean, you're saying that it's a political piece.
I haven't read it.
Kevin McCarthy is the Unit Party's candidate.
That is obvious, right?
And he's also recalcitrant on these rules changes that I would think any American would reasonably agree to, like giving us 72 hours to read the bills, having a single subject with Germany so that you're not voting on like the farm bill and the war in Yemen at the same time or the national defense and WordA like we had to do last week.
So those are the demands we've placed on McCarthy.
He's unequivocally said he would rather not be speaker than agree to some of the things in this memo.
And so at some point we have to move on.
This is not a doomsday.
It might take a little longer, but ultimately, if we get a speaker responsive to the membership and agreeing to rules that will open up the house so that we can do a good job for our constituents, that's what's better for the country in the long term.
If those concessions are made, are you at least open to voting for Kevin for Speaker?
Well, I have yet to see any deal that doesn't require some element of trust to bind it together.
And since I don't trust Kevin McCarthy, that's why I am not voting for him.
Now, if somehow someone can bind some deal together that is not in any way reliant on trust, I'm always open-minded, but right now I'm not going to vote for Kevin.
On-minded is good.
So, Matt, we got to make sure the House stays Republican.
That's my vote for my number one mission is you got to make sure the House stays Republican.
We can't lose it through a process.
Matt, see you this week at an Amfest.
Thanks so much.
Appreciate it.
Can't wait.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email me your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
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