All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Jan. 6, 2023 - The Charlie Kirk Show
33:32
If Not McCarthy, Who? with Rep. Dan Bishop and Matt Peterson
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Dynamic Process of Compensation 00:12:01
Hey, everybody, to the Charlie Kirk Show.
Dan Bishop joins us.
He is currently a no on McCarthy.
We'll see if there is any flex in those joints.
And we have some other big guests and commentary for you.
Email me your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
That is freedom at charliekirk.com.
Get involved with Turning PointUSA today at tpusa.com.
That is tpusa.com.
Start a high school chapter or a college chapter 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 andrewandodd.com, the wonderfulandrewandtodd.com.
Appears to be no movement in the speaker's race.
Same result.
However, I'm told that negotiations are ongoing.
In fact, I just received a text message from somebody that is very tied in, one of the 20.
And they said, we have got some massive wins if we can actually get them done because trust is an issue.
Congressional Leadership Fund will no longer play in primaries.
Let me see here.
Reducing the amount of members needed to vacate the chair.
Committed to bringing up a term limits bill.
No more omnibus bills, individual votes on each appropriations bill, and more.
Joining us now is Congressman Dan Bishop, who is one of the 20 no's.
And we want to get his perspective on how things are going.
Congressman Bishop, thank you for joining the program.
You're currently a no.
Walk us through your perspective.
And is there any movement?
Is there anything you're hearing that might put you in the direction to support Kevin McCarthy?
I am a no.
I'm a yes for others to this point.
And we're having very important things that are going on.
It's at a very sensitive moment right now.
So I would probably hesitate to characterize every detail as it emerges.
I don't think that's helpful through the process.
But, you know, this isn't the option.
A lot of people sort of wringing hands about this, Charlie.
We've had three days.
The world doesn't end over three days.
And we've had some extraordinarily important tasks done and then processed for the American people and the way this place is governed.
Fixing broken Washington is what the story is.
No, I hear that completely.
And so there's 20, let me rephrase it.
Instead of saying no's, I think that's a fair piece of feedback.
There's 20 people that are not supporting Kevin McCarthy currently.
Can you at least read us into, are there some conversations happening in good spirit and momentum?
Because this latest vote doesn't seem as if that has yet materialized in any movement.
Right.
And I will, again, it's really important not to get ahead or behind of the exact spot things are.
But work has been going on off the floor since last June.
And all sorts of progress has been made.
So that spirit continues.
And I'm confident that it's going to bear fruit.
As I've said, this is a dynamic process.
People always say, well, how's it going to end?
Who's it going to be?
Well, that's the whole nature of the process and the way it's designed is men and women of goodwill come on the floor of the United States Congress and they engage in this process.
So what I will tell you, and it's not just pie in the sky, this is going to work and it's going to be better for the American people.
So what are, let's talk more broadly then.
What are some of the issues that you think that you would like to see resolved?
We've talked about on this.
And I think, by the way, you know, you guys deserve credit for highlighting them, right?
As far as rules committee steering committee, keeping CLF out of primaries, which was a big issue.
Can just walk our audience through just some of the issues that you think are important to try to bring to completion or to try to get to a place where you would consider it reasonable victory.
So there are several buckets, Charlie.
It is about personnel, both in the top spot, process and rules and procedures about the way the body operates.
And finally, legislative policy commitments.
Limited, but extraordinarily important.
Each one has to be resolved.
And you can have a policy resolution issue that is, or excuse me, a personnel issue that goes beyond the speaker.
And those are being addressed as well.
And some of these things can compensate for one another.
That's why it's a dynamic and difficult process.
Is even if you've got sort of almost irreconcilable opinions over a person, you might be able to build in sufficient safeguards in order to work around that.
So that's the work that's going on.
It's not easy.
It's not unimportant, though.
And the notion that we're doing it, Democrats said on the floor when I earlier days, I nominated Byron Donalds in this round that, oh, they're ready to do the people's business.
There's no more important business for the people to do than to stop the way this place produces the omnibus endless.
Yeah, I think omnibus is a sloppy.
I do.
And I think that, you know, for example, Crenshaw calling you guys terrorists is just so beyond reckless and irresponsible.
It's nauseating, actually, and really unhelpful.
It's part of old Washington.
It's part of the pre-change Washington.
As I just said in my speech also, that someone called Byron Donalds a prop last night.
You know, that's an old racist trope.
Eric Swalwell tweeted, retweeted something that said that Miss incorrectly reported that I was going to leave Congress if I don't get my way.
Never said it.
It's been corrected.
It has been corrected, but he quote tweets and sends it out because people deal in lies up here.
That's old Washington.
We have to work always on bringing Washington to a new place.
And I think that is definitely an admirable task and not easy in any way, shape, or form.
But I think there is a tension, which is, will there be a place?
And again, this is hypothetical.
So I don't anticipate you to answer this, you know, clearly, which is, you know, is there a place where you're willing to accept a potential deal?
And again, it's hypothetical, right?
Because you don't know what that deal is or what it looks like.
And because there was this news article that said, okay, if Kevin McCarthy becomes speaker, you're going to resign, which is just insane.
By the way, we're glad you're staying in Congress.
We need you.
There's not enough strong conservatives in Congress.
But I guess what I'm getting at is, you know, the positions that have been communicated is I think there's more openness to try to strike a deal than might even be led on by some of this vote tally.
The media is making it seem as if this is embarrassing and humiliating, which, by the way, I think the worst argument to suspend the negotiations is like, well, it looks terrible on TV.
People don't remember anything that happens on TV.
I think that's a really bad argument, honestly.
What I do think is an argument to be worried about, though, Congressman, I'd love your thoughts on this, is the potential coalition government that could be formed.
I do think that is a low likelihood, but that's not an impossibility.
What are your thoughts?
I would two things, Charlie.
One is, you know, the media, you just made reference to reporting and just chaos and everything.
And you never know where you're going to get hits.
Here's something unexpected.
I did MSNBC this morning, Morning Joe, and Joe Scarborough, of all people, responded to Mika talking about chaos by saying, no, you're catastrophizing this.
This is not a big deal in the sense that it's, you know, some sort of huge disruption.
And he's right.
On the subject matter, tell me what the other part of your question was because I lost track of it.
No, I mean, basically, what I was walking through is just a general kind of take on how the media is misrepresenting things and then coalition government.
I mean, because that does seem to have some whispers.
Risks.
Yeah.
And I think that Chip Roy told me that is a risk.
It's a low risk, but walk us through that.
Yep.
And one of the it is necessarily true that one of the offshoots of processes like this is that you face some risks.
They must be managed.
They must be responded to in a rational fashion.
And at the end of the day, people are all judging who's unreasonable and so forth.
All these things are part of the process of reaching agreement.
And yes, they are of concern.
But what you're talking about, in my view, a risk-benefit payoff.
We cannot afford in this country just to leave.
It's interesting to me, Charlie.
One of the guys who's the biggest critics of this is Mark Levin.
I have great admiration for Mark Levin, but Mark Levin wants to have an Article 5 Constitutional Convention to change the Constitution.
But he regards the risk of not immediately following the age-old system and carnating Kevin McCarthy as being a risk you can't possibly run.
I don't even understand how that's rational to keep those two in mind at the same time.
And I think to defend the great one, I believe that there is a posture that, quite honestly, I have at times, which is we barely won anything in the midterms.
Why even introduce risk into the equation?
And that's exactly the point, though, if I could, Charlie, is I think the reason we barely won the midterm is because people don't think there's much conviction operating in the world.
Yeah, that's probably true.
They'd like to see some.
That's probably like the C-Sun.
Keep on fighting for your constituents.
My last sign-off will be my encouragement is to stay open-minded.
And if you get a deal that is, you know, almost too good to believe, I encourage you and your colleagues to pray about that and to be open-minded for it because some of the concessions that are being floated, at least in the leaks, seem to be rather compelling.
Congressman Bishop, thank you so much.
I appreciate it.
Thank you, Charlie.
Thanks.
Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here.
Patriot Mobile has emerged as one of the leaders in the parallel economy, and they have big news.
Patriot Mobile now offers service with all three major networks.
This means if you're at the big three and like the service but hate their values, you can access them with Patriot Mobile.
They also offer a performance guarantee.
If you're not happy with your coverage, you could switch between the three major carriers for free.
Patriot Mobile, America's only Christian conservative wireless provider, offers nationwide coverage on the best 4G and 5G networks.
So you get the same great service while supporting a company that fights to preserve our God-given rights and freedoms.
This new year resolved to stop supporting companies that don't align with your values.
Their 100% U.S.-based customer support team makes switching easy.
Go to patriotmobile.com slash Charlie.
That is patriotmobile.com/slash Charlie, patriotmobile.com/slash Charlie.
Get free activation with the offer code Charlie, patriotmobile.com/slash Charlie.
Pushing Against The Regime 00:14:28
Okay, we have Matthew Peterson here, Matt Peterson from American Firebrand.
Matt, how are you doing?
What do you make of what is happening in the House of Representatives?
Well, thanks for having me, Charlie.
You know, good times is all I can say.
I'm over being angry.
I'm over, you know, I mean, all these emotions are good, I guess, in their way if they're tied to virtue, right?
Anger isn't a sin, they tell me, Charlie.
But at the same time, I'm over it because I think this is great.
Any kind of disruption is great.
And the more wrenches you throw in the system, the better.
And I'm through taking the House of Representatives very seriously in the first place.
No one's coming to save you.
And any disruption is good.
And the more we rip off the veils and the band-aids, the better, in my opinion.
And then we have, and then half the country and the 20 people that are doing this are then called terrorists and insurrectionists.
I mean, can it be a little bit more nakedly obvious about what the agenda is here?
Oh, yeah.
And let's look at the terrorism.
Like, let's talk about the real terrorism, which is which is basically the threats from party leadership to the rest of the country and the attitude that we don't care whether you support sending billions of your own taxpayers dollar, your own, your own tax dollars over to Ukraine, while there's a recession, whether it's an inflation.
We don't care what you think about illegal immigration.
We're going to say some nice things and not do anything about it.
And by the way, how dare you not vote for us, right?
And in McCarthy's case, I get it.
He's not a complete, you know, he's not a complete squish on everything.
He's not quite Mitt Romney.
I don't say that about him.
But the problem is this isn't getting done.
It's not getting done.
And the threats when it comes to terrorism, they come from the worst in the party leadership when they get upset that how dare anyone hold them accountable or not let them go continue to do what they want.
They still haven't learned the lessons of Trump.
And only a minute left in this segment.
We'll go through this in the next.
You know, I was talking to somebody that was, let's just say, more moderate congressman, old friend that I used to be, and we're still cordial and it's fine.
He knows where I stand.
And he was getting really angry at me and saying, why am I not calling these people out more?
I said, hold on, calm down, because I think I've actually had a pretty nuanced view on some of this stuff.
But I said, hold on.
You're totally missing why this is happening.
People are so betrayed for a second, have a little bit of magnanimity that these people have lost everything politically and they've had zero pressure release valve.
Yeah, again, at the very least, you have to acknowledge why people are upset.
That's not upset for good reason.
They're upset because they're not being represented well.
It's as simple as that.
And they don't listen to their voters and they're told and they're called the most awful things.
And then they say, well, we just want to get back to business.
I said, that's a great argument to continue this.
Like, meaning, I mean, to continue the if the argument is, let's get back to business, that's that's not how you close the deal, right?
And I, I, I do think that you should be open-minded here about concessions or things that can make things better.
But it's like, I mean, Mike Gallagher goes there.
He's like, you know, we got to get back to sending money to Zelensky.
Like, yeah, man, that's a, you just, you lost me on that.
So Matt, let me read you an email I got from a GOP donor who I'm not going to say the name, but he says, Charlie, I don't understand why people are so angry.
We finally have the House.
Help me understand, because you represent the conservative base, why people feel the need to try to get concessions.
Why don't they just back McCarthy?
I don't understand the anger.
So Matt, help be a translator to someone that would be kind of at the topper levels of incomer society that they're not even, they're not even like, how dare you?
They're just confused.
Yeah.
I actually am confused how someone couldn't understand how people could be raging mad right now.
Matt, your thoughts?
Well, I mean, I really think you have to go back and understand that the election of Donald Trump was a rejection of party leadership.
And, you know, I would first ask if they understood why that was so.
And I think the same reasons apply now years later, simply because the party hasn't caught up to what voters wanted.
And look, take immigration, for example.
This is a great issue because you see a lot of people talk a good game on it, but not all the people actually act on it.
You got 20 years of the base.
You got more than that, of the base going, what's going on here?
Of people going, this is terrible.
And no one caring in Washington, D.C. At the end of the day, the same thing's happening over and over again.
Take something that I'm sure that our friend holds dear, which is power of the purse in the house and the budgets, right?
You know, you don't see anything changing.
You see things moving in the same direction over time, and no one seems to get ahead of how bad things are and acknowledge it publicly.
And the people are over it.
They know how bad things are.
And so when you hear, you know, someone like, you know, Kevin McCarthy, you know, speak, he's not all bad at all, but it just does not seem to address the threat level when you live in a world in which the intelligence community is and the government itself is directly shaping discourse in the public square on Twitter and, you know, no doubt in many other media institutions.
And so we're not at a place where we can wait anymore, where in the before times where there is a process and it's going to go somewhere, winning the house almost means nothing.
I mean, you're just winning the house is just being able to throw a little bit of a wrench against this regime.
But there are some things you could do, but what you would do depends upon how you see the scene and where your priorities are.
And we don't see the acknowledgement of the situation this country is in at the top in a way that corresponds with the reality we're seeing.
And so someone like McCarthy will talk about some issues we care about, right?
Someone like McCarthy will talk about some of them, but not all of them and not in a way that convinces you that this is someone who understands this country is in deep, deep trouble and is falling apart and it's go time.
Structural issues too.
So let me ask you, Matt, you know, we spent a week together and I learned a lot from you and from Claremont and we read some great books.
And a theme that we explored was this idea of prudence and that we could do a whole hour on that.
And so what is the prudent thing to do in this situation?
Knowing that there's probably 100 votes that will only go for Kevin or a moderate, knowing that there's 20 that will not be reconciled.
What do the classics have to teach us for this moment of pressure?
And how do we use prudence to try to go about protecting what is good, true, and beautiful?
Yeah, it's a great question.
And it assumes that I am the prudent man.
The standard for prudence is the protection of the man.
The learned man, though you are the learned man, so but I well, I well, you know, a little bit of learning goes, uh, gets you in trouble.
Uh, so I think, look, I think that the answer to that question is really what's possible in this situation, what's the best possible outcome, uh, and uh, you know, what's realistically possible.
And there, I mean, it strikes me that A, uh, protest is not necessarily imprudent.
Throwing a wrench in the system is not imprudent in this situation.
It's planting a flag, it's saying, Hey, we're not going to accept this, and it's getting a lot of people's attention.
And that's good.
I'm all for it.
I do think at the end of the day, um, you know, it depends on what the best possible thing is.
If that is a set of a set of concessions, um, you know, as some people are arguing, um, then great, go for it, you know, grab whatever, whatever you can.
If there is some other candidate, uh, you know, that could possibly be the best scenario as well.
But, you know, it depends on what the best possible is.
So there has to be some kind of improvement, though, I would say, either in terms of concessions or another candidate other than McCarthy for this to work.
And I think the way that the opposition, those who are opposed to it, what their argument would be is, well, you're not going to get something better.
And, you know, this is all for nothing.
But I don't see the protest as for nothing.
I don't know, you know, I don't know if anyone knows the situation well enough to judge what the best possible thing is.
But, you know, by all means, like, get every concession you can.
This is a guy who has the Ukraine flag.
You know, I mean, on his, I mean, get every get every concession you can and push as hard as you can.
I don't think that there's any real answer, though, for an alternative candidate at this point.
And I don't think anyone really knows where we're going with this.
Yeah.
And so that's that's the trick, right?
Which is to go about this with prudence or with wisdom, you have to know what you want.
And the consensus from our audience is we want Kevin McCarthy gone.
And I hear that.
I see it.
I mean, we're getting thousands of emails saying the bottom line is we want removal.
And again, the spirit, the reason that so many people believe that is totally a reason I agree with is they've been so deceived, so betrayed.
They're like, finally, we have a chance to take somebody out that is part of the community of what they call traitors.
Your thoughts?
Yeah, look, I totally feel that.
I think that's right.
And I will make, I think there's a big difference between McConnell, by the way, and McCarthy.
I think that's exactly right.
You have to be fair on that.
They're not the same.
We do have to be fair.
I don't think that his heart is in the wrong place on everything.
But I do think that the brutal assessment of the audience is also my own, which is this is not who I would pick to be in charge right now when we are in the situation we're in.
He has not demonstrated that he can understand internally, you know, what he would need to understand and do what he needs to do.
That is my opinion as well.
And again, I don't think he's all bad or pure swamp creature, but it's just too much old DC.
It's too much not understanding.
So look, I get it.
And I don't have a problem with throwing the wrench in there either.
I mean, I think this idea, I guess what I would push back at with some of the, and some of my friends too, who are, you know, sort of donors who are kind of puzzled by this is, I don't really know what you think you're going to get done anyway.
The biggest thing you can get done is by obstructing them or investigating.
That's a legitimate thing, right?
The church committee has to happen.
Yeah.
So, if, look, there were no promises previously to a church committee, but a real, actionable promise to have Matt Gates, Jim Jordan, investigate the FBI.
Yeah.
Man, I'll be honest, that would have been a pipe dream six months ago.
Yes.
No, don't you think that's that?
I'm excited about the same thing.
I really think that, look, if we're at the point now where, and what's funny about this is I've been saying this for a while.
All my friends in DC, everyone there is like, oh, it's impossible to get rid of McConnell's, impossible to get rid of McCarthy.
I was like, just you watch.
You're not in normal times.
And people, but all of a sudden, people will go, no, I'm done.
And it's funny because now I'm looking at it like, I don't know who else they're going to put in, though, but they've done this.
That movement is important.
The Overton window has shifted.
And when it comes to what Congress can do, the biggest thing they can do is shine a light on and actually investigate, spend some money, hire some lawyers, actually investigate the deep state.
So if that comes out of this, great.
Like, I think, you know, squeeze the max you can.
And at the end of the day, you know, it's a good move.
I don't know what the maximum is.
I really don't know what's possible.
I don't think anyone does.
And I, yeah, it's you're in unknown territory, uncharted territory, because there is a threat of a coalition government.
And it's a risk, but I've now had three no's or three non-McCarthy voters all come on the program and they're like, look, this is a risk.
There are conversations.
There are people in the Democrats that are trying to broker a coalition deal.
And we have to continue to go on our path knowing that that's a risk.
And their argument is nothing good in life comes without risk.
That is correct.
That is true.
But when I start hearing about, hey, Gates and Jordan and MTG and Boebert that are going to get a green light to send the attack dogs after probably 30 years of the FBI messing with our domestic politics, that's just one of several, not to mention the vaccine stuff and the war on parents.
And so I hope our audience just is managing their expectations.
The biggest wins are on the investigations and then hopefully saying no to like $3 trillion going to LGBTQ centers in Kiev or something.
Final thoughts, Matt?
Yeah, I think that's right.
I mean, I think, look, the big picture here is these people are not ultimately going to save you.
Look at them on C-SPAN.
I'm sorry.
I like many of them, but they're not going to save you.
The big picture is the best the House can do is obstruct and investigate and shine a light.
That's right.
And that's it.
And so we want to push that to the max.
But as you just said, Charlie, manage the expectations and realize the protest is here, but this whole squabble is not going to not solve things.
Managing Expectations On Investigations 00:02:18
We just want to push them as far as we can.
Yeah.
And protest must lead to something or else it fizzles out, right?
So what it saw Alinsky say, a tactic that goes on too long becomes a drag.
Yeah.
And I'm not saying we should employ Alinsky, but maybe I'm saying we should employ Alinsky because the guy put some points on the board, you know, and has put some points on the board.
Not a huge, you know, admirer of books dedicated to Lucifer, but he, it's at some point, the House Freedom Caucus that is doing this, they are playing an Alinsky game.
Do a tactic that your people enjoy.
Matt Gates is having the time of his life.
Okay.
But when it becomes a drag, it starts to go against you.
Matt, thank you so much.
Tell our audience 30 seconds about how people can support you and the projects you're working on.
Oh, go to AmericanFirebrand.com, go to newfounding.com.
And, you know, we're putting it together, both on the political side, holding people's feet to the fire, and also uniting people throughout the world of business to create things that aren't woke.
Thank you.
Very supportive.
Matt, come back anytime.
Thank you so much.
Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here, the inventor and CEO of MyPillow, Mike Lindell, is always looking for ways to solve everyday problems.
Have you ever picked up a towel set because it felt really soft in the store?
But then when you go to use it, it's not very absorbent.
It's basically a towel that's leaving you out to dry.
That's why MyPillow has developed the MyPillow towels, towels that work.
I know it's mind-blowing, towels that actually dry you.
The six-piece towel set that includes two bath towels, two hand towels, and two washcloths.
They come in a variety of colors.
And right now, you can receive a six-piece set for only $39.98 with promo code Kirk.
Go to mypillow.com right now and click on the Radio Listener Special.
MyPillow products come with a 10-year warranty and have their 60-day money-back guarantee.
To receive this amazing offer on the six-piece set of MyPillow towels, go to mypillow.com and click on the Radio Listener Special and use promo code Kirk.
That's mypillow.com.
Use promo code Kirk or call 800-875-0425.
That is mypillow.com, promo code Kirk.
Moderates Strike Back 00:04:44
Let's go to Cut 40.
This is Matt Gates' framing play cut 40.
And I think this ends one of two ways, Trace.
Either Kevin bows out, realizing there's no path for him to become Speaker of the House, or he essentially has to wake up, bring the House into session, and put on a straitjacket with a rules package that we've presented to him that doesn't allow a lot of discretion for the Speaker of the House.
The reason we've demanded that is that we do not trust Kevin McCarthy.
So Matt Gates is saying, look, there's only one of two ways that this goes.
Basically, you resign and bow out, or the speaker basically becomes a ceremonial position.
That is essentially what Matt Gaetz is saying.
He's like, okay, Kevin, you could become Speaker, but you're basically just then going to be proxied by the Freedom Caucus.
Now, there is another thing that you got to understand is let's say that the Freedom Caucus comes to terms and 16 of the 20 end up voting for Kevin McCarthy and Kevin McCarthy become Speaker of the House.
Don't be shocked at the revenge of the moderates, where the moderates try to go and have revenge against the Freedom Caucus and go find bills to go vote in conjunction and in harmony with a lot of Democrats.
The moderates are getting very, very angry over this.
And honestly, I don't really care.
But you need to understand that they have power, they have influence, they have a lot of money, and the moderates are going to strike back in a lot of different ways.
They're going to strike.
Right now, moderates are also in Kevin's ear, just so you understand the dynamics here, saying, Kevin, don't give into these Freedom Caucus people.
Go caucus with Democrats.
And there's a lot more moderates than there are conservatives.
I don't like that, and you don't like that.
There are 20 moderates that are in Kevin's ear saying, don't give in to Gates.
Don't give in to Bobert.
Don't give in to Bishop.
Don't give in to Norman.
Don't give in to Crane.
Don't give into Luna.
Don't give into Rosendale.
They're terrorists.
Go and find 10 Democrats.
I'll help you with this and get this deal done.
And so Kevin is saying, no, I want to get this done with Republicans, not Democrats.
Now, there's two ways to read that.
You could read that as he's actually philosophically Republican or conservative.
I don't think you're going to be very persuaded by that based on your emails.
Or he just doesn't want to be known as the speaker that had to go get Democrats to go get elected.
Now, if I'm not mistaken, Paul Ryan, boy, I don't want to speak out of turn here.
I think either Paul Ryan or John Boehner went to go get Democrats at some point.
But I'll have to go back in the historical records or I don't want to speak out of turn.
Matt Gates nominated Donald Trump to become Speaker of the House, play cut 50.
Gates.
Donald John Trump.
Trump.
The murmurs are just worth the price of admission, aren't they?
And MTVG just looks at him.
Okay, so Hakeem, did Hakeem Jeffries change his suit?
I think so.
He was wearing something else earlier.
I mean, this is just exhausting at this point.
These Democrats, how many times can you stand up and nominate the same person?
I mean, this is actually pretty good for Hakeem Jeffries' national profile.
I think that is also part of what the Democrats are thinking here.
Look at all the free time.
Andy Biggs, I'm guessing, is going to be nominating Byron Donald's right now, if I'm not mistaken.
And it's Congressman Andy Biggs from the East Valley of Arizona.
And so we shall see.
And we don't have time to cut to that, but we can do that in the break.
I'm curious to see who he's going to be nominating and what his remarks are.
Email us your thoughts, freedom at charliekirk.com.
And so there are right now moderates, forget the coalition government.
That's part of the conversation.
There's another conversation that is probably going to be more immediate of McCarthy's team that is going to say in negotiations where they're saying, you know what?
I'm going to go find 20 Democrats and we're going to get this done without you.
That would not speak well of McCarthy, obviously, but that would be a tragic development if there are concessions on the table to have a Republican house, not a Republican Democrat house.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email me or Fox is always freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thanks 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