A Jaw-Dropping Prediction About Trump with Bill O'Reilly and Julie Kelly
The Proud Boys are on trial for attempting to overthrow the government of the United States, even though some of them were not even in Washington D.C. on January 6. Julie Kelly gives the lowdown on the trial, and then makes a stunning prediction: That the result of this trial will be used not just to bring federal charges against Donald Trump, but also to make him legally ineligible for a second term. Plus, Bill O'Reilly talks about his new book, Killing the Witches, and gives his perspective on what is next for Tucker Carlson.Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson00:12:37
Hey everybody, today the Charlie Kirk show.
Bill O'Reilly joins us and Julie Kelly, two very powerful interviews here about Tucker Carlson.
And Julie Kelly makes a prediction, a jaw-dropping prediction about Donald Trump's criminal future.
You're going to want to listen to this entire thing.
Get involved with TurningPointUSA at tpusa.com.
That is tpusa.com.
Start a high school or college chapter today.
We're ramping up our independent funded membership.
Those of you at charliekirk.com/slash support, keep us strong and free.
You guys can go to charliekirk.com slash support.
Thank you, Curtis from Phoenix, Arizona.
Sandra from Spring Hill, Tennessee, Linda from California, James from Palm Coast, Florida, great spot, Marissa from Minnesota, Sharon from New Jersey, Terry from Wisconsin, Christine from Utah, Cheryl from California, Michael from Michigan, Kristen from Schomburg, Illinois, and Karen from Ohio.
All of you that I just mentioned, including many I did not mention, at charliekirk.com/slash support.
You allow us to continue to speak our mind, get our message out, be free of censorship, and be free of corporate oligarchy.
So go to charliekirk.com slash support.
If we have impacted you anyway, charliekirk.com/slash support.
Email us your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com and get involved with turningpointusa today at 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 the Loan Experts I Trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandTodd.com.
Joining us now is Bill O'Reilly.
Bill, welcome back to the program.
You have a new book out.
Let's start with that.
Tell us about it.
Killing the Witches will be out in September.
I hope we can talk that month about it.
It's essentially the horror of Salem, Massachusetts.
We take you through the 20 individuals who were murdered by the authorities in New England.
But we start off in the Mayflower, put you on a boat, you come on over to the New World, and then things rapidly get out of control.
Second half of the book is Benjamin Franklin, who actually witnessed this witch trial stuff in Boston where he was born.
He was a kid at the time.
And then the third part is about demonic possession today.
So this is another one of those killing books that I don't think people are going to be able to put down.
So Bill, just quick question on it.
What did you learn in the process of doing this?
I always ask you this as we go through your books.
What was eye-opening?
What was, you know, you probably had a perception of what you thought was happening during that.
What was the biggest thing you learned in the process of writing the book?
That the way we live in America today with religion and the state was shaped by the Salem witch trials.
So it's relevant to right this second.
And the second thing is all of the unbelievably strange stuff that happened on the set of the movie The Exorcist.
It is absolutely incredible what happened during that shoot.
And it has been underreported.
So those are the two headlines that I'll bring out.
Very good.
The book is now available, Killing the Witches, Bill O'Reilly.
So Bill, I have to ask about the big media news of the week.
I mean, you've been in the room and on the other end of the phone with the Fox stuff.
What's your take on the Tucker deal?
And I mean, is this, do you think there were other political dynamics at play here?
Was it lawsuit related?
What is your take?
Well, what finally happened was this lawsuit filed by one of his bookers who taped him and his staff continually.
And the word is that she's got 90 tapes.
So she went into the Tucker Carlson program, you know, with a tape recorder, trying to get bad stuff so she could sue, which she has in Manhattan.
And her lawyer, you know, they're lined up, Charlie, you know this, from New York to L.A. to sue anybody for anything.
Yep.
So this woman did that, has these tapes.
Fox News knows a bit of what's on the tapes.
The lawyer goes in and says, if you don't pay my client all this money, we're going to put the tapes out.
And so Fox is facing another lawsuit coming off Dominion.
Then you had 60 Minutes.
You had Ray Epps.
He basically told the whole world, Tucker Carlson ruined my life, the lives of my family.
You think that lawsuit's coming down?
That looked like it was getting set up there to me.
So this was going to be an ongoing thing.
And they made the decision, the people that run Fox News, to get out of it.
And that's basically what corporations do.
There's no more Tammy Wynette, stand by your man.
Doesn't matter how loyal, how good you were, how much money you made them, what you did.
Doesn't matter.
If they think you're a liability, you get thrown overboard.
And so, you know, I guess my question also would be then, what would your advice be to Tucker as he contemplates his next move?
And how intense are these non-disparagement clauses and these kind of NDAs?
Are they going to have him locked down for the next couple years?
Nobody knows that.
I assume Mr. Carlson has good attorneys.
You know, I can't answer the question as far as specifics on what he has, what he doesn't have, but I can tell you he'll make a fortune, as you know, Charlie, in social media.
If he can set up his own apparatus like I did six years ago, ironically, it was six years almost to the week.
I left, and then he left six years later.
Well, I immediately formed billoreilly.com and the no spin news.
And I was actually startled to see this week the Wall Street Journal wrote about how successful we have been because nobody ever writes anything good about me in a print press.
But Carlson can do exactly the same thing and make a bloody fortune.
And that's what I assume he'll do.
Yeah, and so it's an interesting question.
I guess it's all speculation at this point.
But, you know, Fox deciding to depart from someone who is rating, ratings are down 30 or 40 percent.
But I guess their calculation right now is they want blue chip advertisers to come back or, you know, just is there anything to the abrupt nature of this bill?
I mean, they want the boycotts to obviously stop, but this doesn't seem very calculated or prudent on behalf of Fox.
Maybe I'm missing something.
Well, it depends how you look at it.
So when I left them, Fox News, they took a tremendous hit.
Carlson was put in there, but he lost about 1,200,000 of my audience for two years.
And then he pivoted to the right.
He decided to do what Rush Limbaugh did, and he was very successful in doing that.
And he put back some of the audience, but he was not the highest-rated show on the Fox News channel.
That's the five.
So the calculation I believe that was made was: look, the whole cable news industry is a sinking ship.
And if you look at the ratings last six months, the 25 to 54 audience, that's the audience that listens to you primarily, is gone.
Not only from Fox, but on CNN, MSNBC, and the network news.
Gone.
Younger Americans don't want it anymore.
My theory on it is it's too boring.
And Carlson was not boring, which is why he did well.
He wasn't boring.
He didn't know what he was going to say.
Most of the other programs.
news programs on television are absolutely stupefyingly dull.
Yes.
And younger people just don't have the time for that anymore, so they're gone.
So I think the calculation was made.
Look, we know that this is a dying industry.
It's going to be around, but it's, you know, a shadow of what it was when I was, you know, number one for 16 years.
And so we'll get to get as much money as we can.
We'll take a hit with Ducker Carlson, and they will.
There's no doubt about it.
But we'll just try to vacuum up as much money because this isn't a long-term game.
Fascinating.
Well, Bill, I encourage everyone to check out your book.
Thank you for spending time with us here.
And I agree with you.
I think the media landscape is dramatically changing in a very serious way.
And it's uncertain kind of all the different incentives and dynamics that are playing into this and whether or not Fox is going to be able to survive.
And I mean, I guess my last question, Bill, is did your non-compete block you from starting no spin news?
Or, you know, was that something?
I didn't have a non-compete.
Oh, wow.
Okay.
So the question, look, for us, it was different.
It was a business decision.
All right.
They made a decision, and my attorneys, I think the best in the world, came in and said, all right, you know, you got to pay this contract out, which they did.
No problem with that.
All right.
They fulfilled every congratula obligation.
And, you know, we wish you the best.
That's all it was.
And it was, and that's my philosophy.
I don't want to work for anybody who doesn't want me.
Okay.
And now, just like you, I work for myself.
Yep.
How much better is that?
I love it.
You're your own boss.
Yeah.
I mean, you and I are sympathetic though, because we do different things, but we're in social media.
Nobody tells us what to do.
All right.
We put out a product.
There are millions of people who will sample a product.
And if they like it, they'll stay.
And I don't have to deal with corporate meetings.
I don't have to deal with nonsense.
I don't deal with any of this.
I got a lot more time to spend with my kids and to do the things I want to do.
So for Tucker Carlson, the abruptness of it, as you point out very astutely, is a shock.
And it's not only a shock to him, but his whole staff.
I know everybody over there.
And most of the people at Fox News, the worker bees, are really good people.
They really are good people.
I feel bad for them because there's blood in the streets now.
And there's going to be layoffs over there.
Salaries are going to get cut.
The ratings are going to go down.
Management will change.
Pandemonian.
Meanwhile, Kirk and O'Reilly, I mean, we're singing a song because we got our own operations.
Exactly right.
We go right to the folks.
We go right to the folks.
We go straight to the people.
In fact, we become stronger because of it.
And look, you know this guy.
It takes a risk to own and operate your own stuff, but you're your own boss and you bet on yourself.
And it's the way to go.
Absolutely.
And Carlson will find that out because he is talented and he does have name recognition and a following.
And when he does do whatever he's going to do on social media, people will sample it.
So it doesn't mitigate what's happened.
I feel bad for him.
You know, these people who are taping everybody, let your audience decide what kind of folks they are.
But it is a perilous world, and television news is a wicked industry.
It definitely is.
Bill, thank you for being generous with your time.
I encourage everyone to check out Bill O'Reilly's new book.
He is prolific.
I can't keep up with all these books.
Killing the Witches by Bill O'Reilly.
Bill, thanks so much.
Okay, Charlie, talk soon.
Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here.
Are you tired of feeling burnt out and struggling to stay productive throughout the day?
Does brain fog and short-term memory loss keep you from functioning at your best?
Well, I did too.
Koch Brothers Political Shift00:06:35
And then I was introduced to Strong Cell, more specifically, NADH.
If you don't believe me, check it out yourself.
What Strong Cell has done is they have a scientific breakthrough in cellular health.
They combine NADH, CoQ10, and marine collagen to boost your body's cellular function.
I personally take it every day.
I'm a big NAD believer.
People say, Charlie, how do you keep up the schedule?
How do you have mental clarity?
Go do some research on NAD.
It is a precursor to ATP, which is your body's life source.
Strong Cell combines NADH with some of the best ingredients and vitamins available.
I get approached by many supplement brands, and I tell most of them no.
Do yourself a favor and give Strong Cell a try.
Visit strongcell.com forward slash Charlie today and use promo code Charlie.
That is strongcell.com forward slash Charlie.
And don't forget your 20% discount by using promo code Charlie at checkout.
Strongcell.com forward slash Charlie.
Check it out.
Strongcell.com forward slash Charlie.
In the last 15 years, 12 years, Andrew Breitbart no longer around, Rush no longer around.
They've indicted Donald Trump.
They take O'Keefe off the chessboard.
But sometimes, sometimes their relentless campaign against conservatives has us forces us to take ourselves off the board, the chessboard, meaning we take ourselves out of the game.
So there's a fascinating article, American Mind, called New Coke.
Many, you might or may not remember this.
Do you remember how the Koch brothers were vilified for years in 2012, 13, or 14?
They were targets of every possible vector of attack because they were billionaire oligarchs that wanted to control our society.
And the Koch brothers were criticized.
They were attacked.
They were scrutinized.
They were vilified in dramatic ways.
You see, the Koch brothers put hundreds of millions of dollars into these causes, mostly under an economic liberty, economic freedom campaign.
But now there's a new article: New Coke, a foundation veers left.
You see, David Koch passed away.
Charles Koch, who is worth, how much is Charles Koch worth?
Like $120 billion?
One of the wealthiest people on the planet.
Oh, $59 billion.
Only $59 billion.
But yeah, $59 billion.
And Julia Koch, who is the heir to David Koch's fortune, is worth $60 billion, who passed away.
They made a decision to now become left-wing to become liberal-ish.
The article at AmericanMind.com says Koch's rhetorical shift is easy to document.
They no longer talk about economic freedom.
They represent a true change in values and priorities, not merely a new outreach strategy.
They no longer talk about economic freedom.
They now talk about racial justice.
They talk about social justice.
This used to be one of the biggest financers of the American right.
Yes, from a libertarian perspective, but they're not even doing that anymore.
Now, from a libertarian, they are just talking about watered-down social justice wokey.
What I'm getting at here is the left will non-stop blitzkrieg you.
And what Koch has decided to do with the Koch brothers, not Coca-Cola, K-O-C-H, Koch has decided to do, is just become liberal light.
Will you keep us?
Will you stay away from us?
They used to be attacked mercilessly.
But now the Koch network has basically joined the resistance.
This article at AmericanMind.com talks about how they no longer talk about economic liberty.
They talk about social justice.
In the area of free speech, leadership took the edge off defending offensive speech, protected speech to focus on peace and harmony, but compromised on peace as well.
Peace as well as free speech.
They say here in one of their network communications that they have a new discussion group at the Koch Network on race and contemporary political life.
Participants discuss the problem of lack of common language or approach to radicalized discourse.
The Koch brothers are funding, well, not just Koch, Charles Koch is funding the future of equity.
They also have a new seminar at Koch, according to this article, Noel Ijitev's argument that, quote, treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity and other works that appear to be rooted in critical race theory more than any ground of classical liberalism.
The Kokes used to be financiers and pushers for liberty, for limited government.
But because of how the left treated them, they took themselves out of the game.
And they are now social justice warrior, pseudo-resistance left-wing forces.
It's a remarkable transformation over the last decade.
It's worthy of a longer and deeper dive to just remind you of what the Kokes used to stand for.
And now they're basically center-left multi-billionaire activists.
Look, are you concerned about the American K through 12 education system?
Are you worried about what your children and your grandchildren are learning or honestly not learning in school?
If you answer yes, my friends at Hillsdale College have a free resource for you.
Hillsdale College understands the importance of education to the future of our country.
They're now offering 10 free print copies of their recent issue of In Primus.
It's titled Education as a Battleground, written by Hillsdale College President Larry P. Arne.
The special issue provides a factual account of the issues in the ongoing battle over education, explaining why parents and teachers, not unelected bureaucrats or activists, should guide what our children are learning.
With Hillsdale College, you can make a difference in your community by distributing these copies of En Primus at your church, local business, or even in your doctor's office.
Do not miss this opportunity to arm yourself with the facts.
Claim your 10 free copies of Education as a Battleground by visiting charlie4hillsdale.com.
January 6th Indictment Details00:14:15
That's charlieforhillsdale.com.
I love Hillsdale College.
I'm an enthusiastic promoter of them.
So check it out right now at charlie4hillsdale.com.
Joining us now is Julie Kelly from American Greatness.
All right, Julie, welcome back to the program.
What is the backstory here?
Proud Boy J6 case goes to jury.
Let's start from the beginning.
Who is getting tried?
What are the allegations here and why does it matter?
So there are five members of the Proud Boys, including their group leader, Enrique Eterio, who have been undergoing this four-month trial marathon trial in Washington, D.C.
The first set of charges, Charlie, were handed down to four of these men in the spring of 2021.
Four of them have been held in pretrial detention, meaning denied bail as they awaited trial.
This will be almost two years.
These innocent men have been held behind bars.
So this trial is going on.
Closing arguments were Monday and Tuesday.
They faced seditious conspiracy charges, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, various other charges.
So this went to the jury on Tuesday afternoon.
They continue to deliberate and we're waiting to see what happens.
Unfortunately, this Department of Justice has a near perfect conviction rate in January 6th trials.
So it's very likely these men will be found guilty of a charge that is comparable to treason, which is seditious conspiracy.
So what exactly did these men do on January the 6th, 2021?
What were their actions?
What did they do?
They did a variety of different things.
And Charlie, this is a First Amendment case.
It's very important.
And I have a lot of coverage at AmericanGreatnessamGreatness.com.
But the government really relied on chat messages and encrypted chats, private messaging.
They had almost 500,000 messages, not just from Proud Boys, Charlie, but numerous FBI informants who were embedded in the group months before January 6th, who were also present in these group chats.
Basically, they traveled to Washington, D.C. differently.
Some of the men didn't even know each other, these defendants before January 6th.
They went to the Washington Monument to hold a rally.
They stopped at food trucks because, of course, all insurrectionists need to load up on tacos before you go over the government.
They need calories.
Yeah, of course.
Yeah, exactly.
And so they brought no weapons.
They had no firearms.
They showed up as Proud Boys have, as you know, for years to defend law enforcement and people who are being attacked by BLM and Antifa when police wouldn't do anything or were overwhelmed.
One of the men, Dominic Pizzola, he's the only one accused of violence or destruction of property.
He used a riot shield that he had gotten to protect himself from incoming flashbangs and rubber bullets by police.
He then used that to smash one of the windowpanes in the Senate.
Enrique Terrio, the group's leader, was not even in Washington, D.C. at the time.
Ethan Nordine was seen walking through open doors with Capitol Police standing right there, not arresting him.
So they were doing different things at different places.
The bottom line is there is no case for seditious conspiracy.
Certainly they could be charged with trespassing or vandalizing property.
No one is accused of assaulting a police officer.
This is simply all for optics, Charlie.
And the reason why the outcome of this trial matters is because the government is going to use this, any convictions, special counsel Jack Smith, to indict Donald Trump on the very same offenses.
That's why the government tried so hard, pulled every dirty trick in the book, was helped every step of the way by Judge Tim Kelly to ensure that they are going to get guilty verdicts out of this jury.
Well, so let me ask you, you're trying to tell me that federal informants were in these text messages with this language leading into January 6th.
Did the federal agents do anything to try to prevent them from actually acting on January 6th or maybe executing an arrest warrant before January 6th?
Or were they encouraging the type of behavior throughout?
So, this is such an interesting question, Charlie, because as you know, I've covered the Whitmer fetnapping hoax.
In that situation, you had informants and undercover agents working with their handling agents to stitch this group together to organize events where they could record evidence.
That's not necessarily what happened with the Proud Boys.
They did have informants who were Proud Boy members, but what they were telling their handlers even that day at the first breach point, Charlie, was that the Proud Boys had no plan.
They had no organization.
They were just going to show up to Trump's speech.
Some of them didn't even want to go to the Capitol.
They wanted to go back to their hotel rooms, telling their handlers there was no plan.
So that is something that the defense really has tried to underscore throughout this trial.
But look, Charlie, similar to Whitmer, you saw anonymous accounts who were posting some of the most inflammatory rhetoric, including stacking bodies outside the Capitol.
This was a phrase that was used repeatedly by the government.
But Charlie, we have no idea who said it.
None of the defendants said that.
So that was the same we saw in Whitmer, right?
You had these informants, undercover agents, saying and posting all sorts of outlandish things that were then used by evidence by the Justice Department.
But the people who posted that not only are not charged, no one even knows who they are.
Isn't entrapment supposed to be illegal, though?
I mean, that's what I don't understand.
I mean, it's not as if a judge would care, but aren't there clear laws against that?
There are.
And that's why you'll recall, Charlie, in the first Whitmer fetnapping trial in April of 2022, which took place not in DC, luckily for the defendants, but in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the defense attorneys put on a very compelling and convincing case of FBI entrapment.
Two men were outright acquitted.
Two men got a hung jury.
There was one juror, one holdout juror.
And then those two men were retried in August and unfortunately convicted, thanks mostly to the judge, just like we saw in this case.
But the defense didn't really make an entrapment argument about the FBI.
Their biggest argument was: look, you had at least eight, maybe as many as 15 informants in the Proud Boys.
You have zero evidence that they were telling their handlers that, oh my God, the Proud Boys are planning an insurrection.
We have to do something.
Make sure you have enough law enforcement protection for the Capitol grounds.
One of the funniest lines about this was one of their witnesses, who was one of a Proud Boy and then took a plea deal.
Said, I can't figure out if the Proud Boys are a political group with a drinking problem or a drinking group with a political problem.
This is all based on inflammatory rhetoric in these private chats that the FBI had access to.
Charlie, why then did the FBI, Capitol Police, DC Metro, all of the law enforcement agencies in DC, if they thought there was this plan?
That's exactly right.
So it actually goes both ways.
So if the FBI didn't act before January 6th, then it's really hard to make the argument that this was premeditated then because they were aware of all their conversations.
Or the FBI was just super incompetent.
So which one is it, DOJ?
If the FBI was not disturbed, why did they even let them step foot into Washington, D.C.?
They were getting real-time chatter and communications.
And so I think that a lot of the case hinges on this, but let's tie this all together.
This, all this trial, all this points to Jack Smith.
And you mentioned this.
Why?
What in the best case scenario is Merrick Garland hoping?
Well, actually, that's not correct.
What is Jack Smith hoping Merrick Garland delivers for him?
Well, look, Jack Smith is a front.
He's a special counsel appointed in November by Merrick Garland to give this pretend phony idea that Jack Smith would be independent.
He wasn't even in the country, Charlie, for the first several weeks, but DOJ did.
They took the prosecutors and investigators who were already investigating Donald Trump to January 6th.
They moved him to Jack Smith's office.
They changed their letterhead to pretend that this is independent.
It isn't.
But the reason why is, as you know, Jack Smith is investigating January 6th, Trump and his alleged crimes in January 6th.
They've actually subpoenaed now Mike Pence, who is going to testify before the grand jury, possibly even tomorrow or next week.
But the very first clip, Charlie, that the government played during closing arguments on Monday was not a clip of the Proud Boys committing a violent crime.
The clip was from September 2020, the presidential debate in Cleveland, when Donald Trump said, after being goaded by Chris Wallace and Joe Biden to denounce white militia terrorism, said, Proud boys, stand back and stand by.
That was the first clip that they played.
So Jack Smith has his marching orders.
I'm sure he and his team are sitting with bated breath, waiting for the jury to announce that they have a verdict.
And if there are convictions, especially in seditious conspiracy, I truly believe that Jack Smith will be one of many criminal indictments that Jack Smith pursues against Donald Trump.
So if you were to kind of just do the betting odds, do you think Donald Trump will receive a federal indictment from Jack Smith?
100%.
Oh, 100%.
So you really think it's all happening right there?
And that, wow, that's let's just hold that.
I want everyone to process that.
That's way more of a game changer than some sort of paperwork thing in Alvin Bragg.
This could prevent him from running and/or being president.
This, a federal indictment, is different.
So we're going to talk about that.
That's a game changer.
100% from Julie Kelly, and she's a very thoughtful person.
So I hope you all heard that.
All right, Julie Kelly, that's a big statement.
100%.
Tell me why.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
110%.
How's that?
Okay.
Because look, Charlie, I know exactly what this DOJ is about.
And more importantly, I know exactly what these judges have done.
They are nothing more, whether it's a Trump-appointed judge like Tim Kelly handling the Proud Boys trial, whether it's Ahmed Maida, Obama appointee, all the way down to Clinton and Reagan-appointed judges.
They are all in cahoots.
They are nothing but a rubber stamp for this Department of Justice.
I totally agree with that.
Yeah.
And so, and look, you have a grand jury that is going to be made up of the same people who are sitting on regular juries, voters selected from a city that gave Joe Biden 93% of the vote, that hold Donald Trump and his supporters in open contempt.
This includes judges.
What they say in these hearings and these sentences are outrageous.
To your point, where are the Republicans?
I've been banging the, especially for the past year about these judges.
Look what the left is trying to do to Clarence Thomas and every conservative on the Supreme Court.
I mean, they have had the full court press.
I can't even get one House Republican to denounce the chief judge of the D.C. District Court who set special pretrial detention guidance for Trump supporters.
I can't even get them to write a letter about it.
These people are so worthless.
They are.
Yes.
And so let's, we're unlimited time, so I'm just going to kind of push this forward.
Can Donald Trump run if he's under federal indictment or if he's under federal conviction?
Federal, your thoughts?
He can certainly run under federal indictment.
I think the conviction part is a little sketchier with insurrection, but he can certainly run if he's charged and I think even convicted on most of these counts.
Okay.
So the issue is if he's under conviction, the timeline is not going to favor the government because these are, I mean, well, I mean, they might accelerate it because it's the, it's DC.
I mean, it's potential.
I mean, what we're looking at, Julie, that he could be standing trial in September of 2024 during the heart of an election.
I mean, this is all by design.
Joe Biden's advertisement comes out and he has nothing but January 6 imagery.
This is all they got.
So, I mean, we should probably think deeply about this, right?
Well, we should.
And I'm so grateful to you for continuing to cover this.
You know, the right has completely buried this, especially Fox News, except for Tucker and Laura Ingram occasionally.
So, and there were no reporters on any site related to the right who covered the Prowboy trial.
Now, look, a lot of them just don't have the resources to do it.
But this is the most consequential January 6th trial for many reasons.
And also, Charlie, for the precedents that's being set.
Seditious conspiracy, really?
No American has ever been convicted.
This is a post-Civil War statute.
They're weaponizing it.
They're getting plea deals.
They're getting convictions.
They're throwing the book at these men for doing nothing except walking into a building, maybe talking smack in chats or online with people.
This is very dangerous precedent.
And the fact that Republicans still, still, after all their promises, will not, for the most part, touch January 6th or the judges or the Department of Justice or Matthew Graves, the DCUS attorney.
They're nothing.
They do nothing.
These are entities they're responsible for, though, Charlie.
They're responsible for it, for all of this.
Have they cut a penny?
No.
Have they written one letter?
Dangerous Legal Precedents00:01:19
The DC district reports?
Nothing.
They've cut nothing.
They've fenced off no money.
But hey, they've done a couple press releases, Julie.
That's big.
Op-eds, actually.
You know, there was an op-ed the other day.
A sharply written op-ed is exactly going to scare the FBI.
So, Julie, 30 seconds.
I mean, I say this as a committed Trump supporter, but I mean, just do you think this jeopardizes Donald Trump's ability to win the White House in 2024?
It could in some quarters.
But, Charlie, I think you can suspect this too.
It will embolden the base.
Well, I know that.
A general election, though, right?
And I don't mean to cut you off.
We're just out of time.
I'm just boy, if he's standing, I mean, the state stuff, I don't think swing voters are going to care.
That's widely perceived as a witch hunt.
But standing federal trial for quote-unquote insurrection, the most insane thing or whatever, seditious conspiracy, man.
I mean, people say, well, he can't campaign from jail.
I mean, Biden campaigned from a basement.
I guess he could.
I mean, I don't know.
We're talking about some wild stuff.
We're out of time.
Julie Kelly, come back soon.
You heard it there, Julie Kelly, 100%.
She thinks he is going to face federal charges.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email us your thoughts.
As 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.