All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Dec. 23, 2022 - The Charlie Kirk Show
33:35
The Kari Lake Trial, Day 2 with Julie Kelly and Steve Cortes
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
DOJ's Indictment Strategy 00:08:33
Hey, everybody.
Today in the Charlie Kirk Show, Julie Kelly joins us to talk about the pathological obsession with indicting Donald Trump.
And then Steve Cortez makes the conservative case for Kevin McCarthy.
I love your questions.
Email me, freedom at charliekirk.com and subscribe to the Charlie Kirk Show podcast.
Open up your podcast app and type in Charlie Kirk Show.
Get involved with Turning PointUSA today at tpusa.com.
That is 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 wonderfulandrewandtodd.com.
Joining us now is Julie Kelly to go through all things with regarding the January 6th report.
And she is from America Greatness.
Julie, welcome back to the program.
Hey, Charlie, thanks so much for having me on.
So, Julie, walk us through.
It looks as if the final J6 committee report has been released.
Maybe or maybe not.
I'm not exactly sure.
Is that not right?
Okay.
Walk us through it.
You're right.
It's supposed to be released.
It was supposed to be released yesterday.
I just checked their website.
It still is not posted.
All we have is this 154-page summary of cherry-picked testimony and narratives that they wanted to collect.
And they're gradually dropping certain transcripts, but the full report still has not been issued.
And this continues to be delayed, Charlie.
And now it looks like they're also going to try to bury some of the more important witness transcripts that people are looking for, i.e., Ray Epps.
Benny Thompson said that those would be released sometime after Christmas when they were supposed to be part of this report, which, as I said, still has not been released.
Yeah, so what can we expect in this report?
You can just expect more of the same.
The political narrative that this committee, the regime, the Department of Justice, and the media has continued to perpetuate that somehow Donald Trump was solely responsible for the events of January 6th, that he incited this insurrection, which, as you know, Charlie, is one of the four criminal referrals made by this committee to the Department of Justice.
Well, still not covering or answering the questions, Charlie, that most Americans want to know.
Why was the Capitol so intentionally unprotected that day?
What happened to the pipe bomber?
Why didn't they release thousands of hours of security surveillance video that captured what happened inside and outside the building that day?
We can just see for ourselves what happened.
Where are the reports from Capitol Police, from Nancy Pelosi's office, from Mitch McConnell's office?
Those are the three entities responsible for protecting the Capitol.
Furthermore, what about documents from DC Mayor Muriel Bowser and her Metropolitan Police Department?
Those issues haven't even been touched on.
And get this, Charlie.
I did a quick search of the executive summary that was released the other day.
Here's a name that isn't even mentioned, FBI Director Christopher Wray.
I don't even know if this committee interviewed him.
So the question that have a lot of people, you know, the question that a lot of people are asking is, okay, so these are criminal referrals.
So then the Department of Justice will take them up against Trump.
Does that go now to the special prosecutor, Jack Smith, or is that a separate division?
Walk us through that.
So Charlie, the Department of Justice is already investigating Donald Trump.
They have a grand jury.
They brought in several of his attorneys.
They brought in Mark Short, Mike Pence's chief of staff.
They're already investigating Donald Trump.
So I believe that these referrals will go to the imaginary special counsel, Jack Smith, who, by the way, isn't even in the country, Charlie.
He's still recovering from knee surgery in the Netherlands.
So that's odd.
But what they did here, Charlie, with the special counsel, they appointed a guy who's not even in the country to give the ruse, to give the head fake that now the DOJ has this independent office, special counsel office, looking into everything related to January 6th.
But Charlie, all they're doing, they're moving the same investigators, the same prosecutors who've been working on this case for nearly two years.
They're just moving them from Maine Justice from the DC U.S. Attorney's Office into the special counsel office.
There's no independence there.
Does anyone think that Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, a longtime Obama loyalist, a Russia gate collusion architect who's been trying to get Donald Trump in handcuffs for the better part of seven years is really going to step away from this?
It's a joke.
This is another deception by this Justice Department.
And so, you know, you're going to have, as I said, the same individuals, the same DOJ looking now at these criminal referrals, just as they've been looking at other criminal, alleged criminal aspects of January 6th.
You mentioned it earlier, but I think it's important to repeat.
We haven't covered it very much on the show.
What are specifically the criminal referrals as it pertains to President Trump?
So there are four criminal referrals.
One is insurrection, conspiracy to incite insurrection.
One is basically giving false statements, perjury.
And then the other two are felonies, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and obstruction of an official proceeding.
Now, these last two charges, Charlie, I've written for months that I believe those are the two counts that a grand jury will indict Donald Trump on.
I was a little surprised by the insurrection count.
That probably isn't going anywhere.
But I think that the obstruction and the conspiracy charges are probably what they will eventually indict Donald Trump with.
So you mentioned the lying under oath or perjury.
How is that possible when he didn't testify?
I believe it has to do with conspiring to make false statements.
So they weren't really clear.
And maybe they will detail, they'll flush this out a little bit more in the report.
But you'll recall that Liz Cheney suggested numerous occasions that Donald Trump was trying to force other people to lie under oath or withhold some sort of evidence.
So I'm not really sure where that charge will go either.
What I really think, Charlie, this is a little bit of safe face for the committee, right?
They want to look like their 18-month investigation really produced legitimate criminal charges when they already know that DOJ has been working on this.
They've been working hand in hand, let's admit it.
But they've been working on this criminal investigation for months anyway.
What I think they added, the insurrection and maybe even the perjury charge, is so DOJ will come back, pretend that they carefully looked at all four criminal referrals, eventually indict on the two, conspiracy and obstruction, and probably drop one or two of the others, the insurrection and perjury.
So it looks like they were really carefully deliberating.
Yeah, that's really Machiavellian and I totally believable.
So the final question I guess I have, because this thing is such a show and it's such a disgrace.
Ray Epps, is his testimony been made public?
It hasn't, Charlie.
And, you know, I'll be anxious to see if his transcribed interview, as we were promised, will be included in this final report.
Will it be heavily redacted?
Or will they say, which I think they're going to do with some of the key interviews, they're going to hand this over to Jack Smith and the DOJ and say, well, this is evidence that they need.
So it's going to be kept over here.
Saving Preborn Life 00:03:10
We can't release it to the public because we can't interfere in an investigation.
But, you know, no.
So we haven't seen anything from Ray Epps.
And as Tucker noted, I believe last night, there was no criminal referral against Ray Epps.
He remains uncharged nearly two years later, despite the fact being seen on video numerous occasions directing people to go to the Capitol, to go inside of the Capitol.
He was on Capitol grounds, which were restricted, which many January 6th protesters face that charge, even though they didn't go inside like he did not.
So we're still waiting for the case of the curious, Mr. Apps.
I mean, look, I'm going to be blunt.
It's so obvious he's a Fed and that he has engagement with the federal authorities and they're trying to cover it up.
And I really hope the new Congress does something about this.
I really hope so.
That needs to be a top priority.
Julie Kelly from American Greatness.
Thank you so much.
Thanks, Charlie.
Merry Christmas.
You too.
It is Christmas week.
I want to tell you guys about a way that you can help save a baby's life for just $28 this Christmas season.
It is true.
Pre-born is one of my favorite organizations.
That's why we're partnering with them this Christmas season on CharlieKirk.com.
There's a banner.
We know that pregnant girls and women who see their babies on ultrasound are far more likely to choose life.
Your gift today can save a baby's life.
Just $28 can give a mother 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.
You just go to charliekirk.com and click on the pre-born banner this Christmas season.
We are just days away from Christmas, one of the holiest days of the Christian calendar, one of my favorite days.
I love this week.
And usually this week's a very slow newsweek.
This is the exception.
We got Trump tax returns.
We got Omnibus.
We got Cary Lake stuff.
It's really all over the place.
We just finished Amfest.
So in this chaotic time, make a commitment to save a baby's life.
If you are pro-life, then my opinion is that part of your giving budget should be directly to help save babies' lives.
That is charliekirk.com.
Click on the pre-born banner.
No better time to save a baby's life than right now.
Your gift is matched dollar for dollar, doubling your impact.
Erica and I are giving money to pre-born.
I think you guys should as well.
CharlieKirk.com, click on the pre-born banner.
We have to be pro-life in every possible way, not just argue for pro-life politics, but go to charliekirk.com and click on the pre-born banner.
Portions of this Charlie Kirk show are brought to you by Pre-Born.
Again, CharlieKirk.com.
Super simple.
Click on that banner.
Give back this Christmas season.
Okay, let's get you an update out of the Kerry Lake lawsuit trial.
Election Disruption Evidence 00:05:49
Maricopa County is currently on trial, you could say.
I believe this is the last day of the trial.
I could be wrong about that, but I believe it is.
It is a very quick, highly compressed, lots of action in a short period of time.
Richard Barris, friend of the show, testified today.
Let's go to Cut 72.
Richard Barris, Republicans were absolutely disproportionately impacted.
Play cut 72.
Republicans were absolutely disproportionately impacted by this.
And we're talking about a net advantage that absolutely puts the margin in doubt.
So we're looking if it was 25 to roughly 40,000 votes, Mr. Olson.
The margin that we saw in these areas puts this election within a few votes either way.
It really does.
Richard Barris, the only question for me is that it had the potential to change the result.
And in his professional opinion, it was substantial enough to change the leaderboard.
Rich Barris is testifying in this trial, saying that the disruptions, the lines, the delays were enough to impact the result.
This is some pretty heavy stuff, play cut 71.
The outcome.
The only question for me is whether it had the potential to change the result.
And in my opinion, in my professional opinion, I believe it did have the, it did have that.
It was substantial enough to change the leaderboard.
It was.
When you say change the leaderboard, do you mean that it would have been a good idea?
Ms. Lake would be ahead.
Yes.
That the leaderboard would have changed, that Kerry Lake would have won.
He did a great job testifying.
Rich Barris deserves a lot of credit.
This is on top of yesterday, Maricopa County Scott Jarrett saying, look, it wasn't a disruption on election day.
Three-hour waiting lines in Anthem, Arizona.
It's not a disruption.
Play cut 52.
So you don't believe that what happened on November 8th was not a disruption in the election process?
I do not couch it as that.
Are you aware that Supervisor Gates came out on Election Day and said 20% of all vote centers were affected by these issues, with ballots being rejected by the tabulators?
Again, we didn't have ballots rejected by tabulators.
They were not being read in by tabulators, but that's not a disruption when voters still had valid options to participate in dropping in those ballots in our secure door number three.
So he considers it not a disruption.
The question that Kerry Lake's lawyer should have asked, oh, it was just waiting for you.
Okay, Mr. Jarrett, what number of voting centers being inoperable would you say constitutes a disruption?
That's like the most simple follow-up question.
You were waiting for it.
Saying, Mr. Jarrett, if that's not a disruption, by what threshold do you define a disruption?
40%, 50%, 60%?
Because there are some estimates that show that 58% of all voting centers were inoperable and went down.
Cut 75, Rich Barris testifies that those who said they would cast their vote by mail or drop their ballot off completed a questionnaire at a rate of 93%, play cut 75.
The bottom line here is that those who said they would cast their vote by mail or drop their ballot off by mail completed their questionnaire at a 93% rate.
There are always going to be people who tell you that they're going to participate in your poll, but then don't, especially in exit polls.
The rate for election day voters was only 72%.
So that doesn't, I can tell you that has never happened to me before, ever.
And why is that significant?
It's significant because, you know, looking at, we can go through it a lot more in depth, but looking at all the totality of it, there's no explanation for why these voters simply did not come back.
They didn't cast their ballot.
There's always going to be a difference, but the difference here is almost 20 points.
It's roughly 20 percentage points.
42 percent of random ballots selected had issues.
42 percent of random ballots selected head issues.
Rich Barris says, I could tell you this has never happened to me in my professional opinion.
I've done many, many of these exit polls.
These people didn't complete this questionnaire because they didn't vote.
They didn't get to vote.
We have evidence of people not being able to vote right here.
I pray this judge will hear this and will seek some form of a remedy.
This was a botched and ambushed and sabotaged election.
That's a massive deal that I just played you in that clip.
It means people didn't vote.
They were disenfranchised.
MyPillow is excited to announce the original MySlippers are back in stock in time for the holidays.
Last Christmas, you made our slippers the number one selling MyPillow product, and now they've added smaller sizes, larger sizes, wide sizes, and all new colors.
What makes my slippers different is the exclusive four-layer design that you're not going to find in any other slippers.
My Slippers patented layers makes them ultra comfortable, extremely durable, and they help relieve the stress on your feet from all the running around this holiday.
Wear them anytime, anywhere, and save $90 off with promo code Kirk.
That's only $49.98 a pair.
You'll absolutely love MySlippers, and now they're extending their 60-day money-back guarantee until March 1st, 2023, making them the best Christmas gift ever.
So go to mypillow.com and use promo code Kirk or call 800-875-0425 now.
McCarthy's Conservative Agenda 00:15:28
Again, use my promo code Kirk and save $90 on the original MySlippers.
That's only $49.98 a pair.
Quantities won't last long, so please order now.
With us now is Steve Cortez.
You guys have got to check out Steve's substack.
Steve, what is your sub stack called?
You know, I should know that.
If you go to my social media, you'll get there.
I think it's just substack.c Cortez.
But regardless, if you go to my social media, I'm on Getter.
I'm at Steve.
Very simple.
It's linked there.
And it's also linked on my Twitter.
I'm at Cortez Steve Cortez with an S.
So, Steve, you have a new piece out, which is getting a lot of attention.
And I want to dive into it with you.
The conservative case for Kevin McCarthy.
You say very clearly that you had your doubts before, but three things have changed your mind.
Walk us through it, Steve.
You bet.
And by the way, when you say that, you know, I had my doubts, that's to put it mildly.
I have been a very fierce and persistent critic of Kevin McCarthy over the years.
Anybody who's followed my writing and my broadcasting knows that I have lambasted him repeatedly and relatively recently.
However, he reached out to me and asked me to come in and speak to him, which I thought was a magnanimous move of him.
And so I went and saw him and I had a very skeptical view of it, frankly, going into it.
But here's why he did, in fact, persuade me that I would support him for speaker.
And if I had the vote, I would vote for him for speaker.
Number one is that he earned it.
And what I mean by that is he won.
And this is crucial, okay?
No matter what you think of Kevin McCarthy, he put together a campaign apparatus that added Republican seats, 23 of them over the last two cycles, 14 and 9.
And he did it through tireless campaigning himself, through excellent candidate selection on the whole.
And then most of all, through very aggressive fundraising.
You know, Republicans, particularly at the Senate level, were massively out-fundraised.
That didn't happen at the House level.
As a matter of fact, Kevin McCarthy and his leadership pack massively out-fundraised Nancy Pelosi.
So we had the firepower necessary to win.
So that's really my first reason simply is that he won and to the winners go the prizes.
And he earned that podium, that gavel with his victory.
The second part, which is more important to me, and I suspect to most of your audience, is that he is moving to the right.
He's somebody who has ideologically not been with us in the past, or at least not consistently so.
But he's laying out a very America-first agenda.
For example, and this is what I spoke with him about in private, but he's been very public about this as well.
I said, will you prioritize the border?
Will you make securing the border the number one priority of the Republican House?
And will you use every single lever at your disposal, including defunding the government entirely of Biden's programs if necessary, risking Biden shutting the government down?
Will you do that to secure the border?
He has said that publicly.
He also looked me in the eye and said, Yes, that will be priority number one.
Other America First type items, he's going to take charlatans like Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell off of committees, Ilhan Olmar off of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
He's going to put Marjorie Taylor Greene back on committees, and he promises and lays out a very methodical and aggressive approach toward congressional committee investigations.
And then the third reason that I believe we should support him is I don't right now see a credible alternative, at least not politically or ideologically to the right of Kevin McCarthy.
And I think there is an urgency.
And to me, Charlie, the idea that they would convene on January 3rd, not pick a speaker and engage in days and weeks and perhaps even months of a Republican food fight in front of the nation when the nation just handed the Republican House this mandate of leadership to start to thwart and to start to fight back against the horrible Biden agenda.
I think that would be the worst possible use of the mandate that has been given by the people.
I think it would make Republicans in the America First movement look foolish in front of the American people.
So the urgency of the moment convinces me that we need to coalesce.
There's not a credible alternative to the right, and that we need to vote for Kevin McCarthy, somebody I've been super skeptical of for a very long time, who I now believe deserves our support with accountability, of course.
I mean, that's the other key part here.
If he does not do what he's promised, if this is just about expediency, and if he's just fooling people like Marjorie Taylor Greene and President Trump and Steve Cortez and I think Charlie Kirk, if he's fooling us, well, shame on us, number one, for being fooled, but number two, we will absolutely hold his feet to the fire for this agenda.
So, Steve, can you walk us through what we are headed towards on one three?
So, Matt Gates was at Amfest.
I think very highly of Matt Gates, but he says we might not have a speaker to the cherry blossoms bloom.
Right.
There are some hard no's, there's some maybes.
Let's pretend that Matt Gates gets his way and he blocks Kevin McCarthy, which I know a lot of people in this audience support.
What does that mean to have a house without a speaker?
It means essentially there is no house.
That's the unfortunate reality.
And this is, I think, the world of Matt Gates as well.
And as a matter of fact, when I was on Capitol Hill last week after I saw Kevin McCarthy, my very next stop was the office of Matt Gates.
And obviously, he and I don't agree on this, but it's very rare that I disagree with him.
And I think the world of him, he's done enormous good for his district and this country.
We just disagree.
This is a family squad.
He was treated so terribly by the media and the DOJ.
But sorry, continue.
Yeah, totally.
No, but listen, and I view this as a family squabble.
I mean, we are still family.
We still share the same agenda.
It's a matter of disagreeing on the tactics on how to get there.
And he makes very valid, reasonable points, okay?
We both just have a different opinion on this, and we'll see eventually who's right.
Here's my biggest problem, though, with the Gates agenda.
If we were to not have a speaker, and I think he thinks it's okay for us to go to the cherry blossoms till springtime in Washington, D.C. without a speaker, literally nothing happens.
When I say there's no house, I'm not exaggerating.
You cannot swear in the members.
There are no committee assignments.
There is no committee work.
It is as if there is no House of Representatives, which means the status quo would persist until a speaker is chosen.
Those are simply the House rules.
I wish the rules weren't that way, but that is simply the reality.
So a speaker needs to be chosen.
And again, I think needs to be chosen relatively quickly.
My hope, of course, would be first ballot.
That very well probably will not happen on the first ballot.
But I do think that The caucus is going to coalesce sooner than people think.
I would also caution this: for people who say, Listen, McCarthy is too squished for me.
He's been too moderate in the past.
He's too wishy-washy.
Again, I understand all of that.
Believe me, again, if you look at my public record, I have been brutal of this guy in the past.
Here's the other risk, though, of not going with Kevin McCarthy: we could get somebody well to the left of him.
You know, remember, there is a significant caucus of moderates within the Republican Party.
I mean, there just is.
And we may not like that, but this is the political reality we face.
It's not the team that we want to put in the game, it's the team that we have on the floor right now.
And there are dozens of Republicans who are very moderate, if not center-left in their orientation.
Now, they are willing to accept Kevin McCarthy and willing to accept his very conservative agenda that he's laying out for now.
But if Kevin McCarthy suddenly isn't a candidate who can win, the reality is we may end up with somebody well to the left of Kevin McCarthy.
And I think that would be a disaster.
Yeah.
And so this is a fear that is no longer an abstraction, which is we win the house and there is no house.
And so think about it.
Let's try to play some three-dimensional chess here.
Hmm.
They're about to pass an omnibus that will basically make the Congress irrelevant to September 30th.
Kevin McCarthy's a no on the omnibus.
Is that right?
Oh, hard no.
He's a hell no.
He says hell no.
Yes.
Okay.
So he says hell no.
Now, the critics are saying he's just doing that because they don't need the house.
The people that are supporting Kevin are saying it's because he believes it and it's a hell no.
It's actually completely irrelevant what his intentions are.
He's a no, so that's good.
Okay.
So if there is no need for a Congress because of the omnibus, this could be a way for the Unit Party to try to say, hey, so what if you don't have a speaker?
Then you don't have what?
Any oversight of Maorkis?
You have no oversight of Garland.
You have no oversight of the southern border.
You have no oversight of Ray.
So Steve, not having a speaker would be a tragedy, wouldn't it?
100%.
And again, the urgency of the situation.
If this were sort of normal times, Charlie, I might be more apt to say, okay, let's have this food fight essentially in front of the American people because we can spend the time, right?
There's nothing urgent that needs to be done in January.
It can be done, you know, in April or May.
That's not the position we're in, right?
Because of what Joe Biden has done to this country, because of the created crises, plural, right?
Particularly the economic crisis, the economic stagnation that we are in, stagflation that we're in because of Joe Biden, but then also the border situation, which again, and that's why to me, there's many important issues, but to me, that is issue number one.
If the border continues to spiral out of control, the manner in which it is unfolding today, we will cease to have an America.
We will cease to have anything like the republic that we were born in, that our parents grew up in.
That is simply the reality.
That's the urgency of the moment right now.
And given that urgency, again, we need the lever of power that we're going to have in Washington, D.C. is the House, because we earned it, quite frankly, because the American people voted by a significant margin, even in the popular vote, which is a rarity in America, voted by a significant margin to give that mandate of power to the Republican Party, to give that speaker's gavel to a Republican.
I think it would be an absolute shame.
It would be a tragedy if we don't grab that gavel and take it and use it effectively to begin to fight back against Biden.
I just think intra-party squabbling for weeks and potentially months would do enormous damage to the country and it would do enormous long-term damage to the Republican Party and to the America First Movement.
The piece that Steve Cortez has published is the conservative case for Kevin McCarthy.
I encourage you guys to read it.
I find many parts of it to be very persuasive.
And I want your thoughts.
Freedom at CharlieKirk.com.
What are your thoughts on the speaker's race?
The general sentiment is not very favorable to Kevin McCarthy.
However, a growing concern that our audience has is, but Charlie, I don't want to lose the House in the process.
Which is very possible.
So, Steve, can you walk us through the motion to vacate the chair?
What is all the drama surrounding this issue?
I don't quite understand it as well as I should, and I'm sure our audience is equally as curious.
Sure.
No, happy to get that.
By the way, just quickly, because one of your audience members suggested Newt Gingrich for speaker, which I would love, by the way.
I don't think it's a realistic possibility, but I happen to notice because it's linked in my Newsweek article, there's also an op-ed in Newsweek from Newt Gingrich arguing in favor of Kevin McCarthy.
So just for the record, and listen, by the way, I know there's a lot of people out there frustrated and angry at me right now, people who support me, people who are political allies of mine are disappointed, particularly because they know how critical I have been, you know, really kind of fiercely so about Kevin McCarthy in the past.
But I'm trying to explain, and I look, I could be wrong, okay, but I'm trying to explain that from a place of principle, I believe that this is where we reach our objectives is via electing Kevin McCarthy.
And we'll see what happens.
But to answer your question about vacate the chair, so it's a matter of in terms of if the speaker were to, if there were a movement to overturn the speaker.
So if Kevin McCarthy or anybody else were elected as speaker, it is difficult to get a vote to the floor or a vote even to even to committees, but much less to the floor without the agreement of the speaker.
It's one of the reasons the speaker of the house is so powerful, very unlike the Senate, where every senator has a lot of individual power, not that way at all in the House.
So the motion to vacate is about saying essentially that they are stipulated that the chair is vacated and that we need to vote on it, that there is no speaker.
So it's a way to topple the speaker.
And the disagreement right now is over what should be that threshold.
What some of the critics of McCarthy want, what Matt Gates is arguing for, is that it should just take one single member out of the 435 in the House to be able to say motion to vacate and that they can do that with no other support rather than a single person.
And what Kevin McCarthy, I think, reasonably says is, I'm okay with having that method in place, but let's have the threshold be higher than one.
And I said, well, how high do you need?
And look, parliamentary tactics are not my bailiwick, okay?
This is not my expertise.
I said, you know, five, 10.
He said, sure, in that range.
So just so that there is a group of people who have a significant problem with the speaker.
And what Kevin McCarthy said to me was, for example, I don't want Eric Swalbo because he's so angry that I kicked him off the intelligence committee to stand up every single day and waste our time by putting one of these motions forward.
To me, that seems reasonable.
He's not saying it can't exist at all.
He's saying it should be a single member.
There will be some flex in the joints.
So Nancy Pelosi got rid of it altogether.
If it's, hey, if 10 members come together and say we want to vacate the chair, I suppose the only counter argument is, I mean, 10 Democrats could easily come together, but so what?
At that point, it would make it harder because then you have to call the order.
So you think that there might be a negotiation around that?
Because I personally believe there does need to be some mechanism to vacate the chair.
I don't think that Pelosi's rules are a good idea at all.
Correct.
Oh, 100%.
I'm with you there.
Yes, absolutely.
But I think there's flexibility there.
And again, I'm not an expert at all in parliamentary tactics, but Kevin McCarthy seems to be reasonable.
He doesn't want it to be single member.
I also think that's pretty reasonable.
Okay.
So the other question here, though, is that some people are saying, Charlie, you know, disagrees with Steve.
Don't want to bombard you with that, Steve, but there's a fair amount of disagreement.
And people are saying that, you know, McCarthy and McConnell and McDaniel are all the same.
I'm going to stand up for you here.
I don't believe that.
I don't.
Plenty fine to have objections and disagreements, but McConnell and McDaniel have behaved in a completely different way.
Can you build that out a little bit?
Do you agree with that assessment?
And by the way, just for the record, that's been President Trump's opinion the whole time.
If you've noticed, President Trump has been extremely publicly critical of McConnell.
He's occasionally a bit critical of Kevin McCarthy, but not really.
And as a matter of fact, I have urged him over the last several years to speak the same way about McCarthy he does about McConnell.
He always made the case to me, which I am now agreeing with, that he is fundamentally different, meaning that, look, we may not view Kevin McCarthy as intrinsically sort of hardcore America first, and he's not.
However, he doesn't fight against our agenda, and he is very persuadable on many elements of our agenda.
Whereas Mitch McConnell is a committed establishmentarian.
He's a committed worst.
And yeah, he's a committed uniparty activist.
And here's another significant difference: McConnell lost.
He didn't win the Senate.
McDaniel lost overwhelmingly relative to expectations.
McCarthy won.
It matters to win.
Yeah, Rana's too busy attacking Turning Point.
I don't know if you saw that yesterday.
The one youth organization that's actually trying to do something and doing it successfully.
I will just say this in closing, though, is that there's two ways to view it, right?
So Matt Gates says, we have a narrow majority.
Now's the time to oust Kevin.
Choosing the Right Leader 00:00:32
Okay.
A lot of people in our audience believe that.
In inverse, though, is you have a narrow majority.
So therefore, you could have the most conservative Congress in American history.
So we'll see what they end up choosing.
Steve, we're out of time.
Thank you.
I encourage you guys to check out his piece, The Conservative Case for Kevin McCarthy.
Thanks so much, Steve.
You bet.
Thank you.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email me your thoughts as always: freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thank you so much for listening, and God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk. com.
Export Selection