All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
June 7, 2023 - The Charlie Kirk Show
35:37
The Decline and Fall of the FBI with Thomas J. Baker
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
FBI Cultural Collapse 00:09:22
Hey everybody, today in the Charlie Kirk Show, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is now talking about its collapse and demise, a deep and fair conversation.
I encourage you to text this to your friends.
Email me freedom at charliekirk.com and subscribe to our podcast by opening up your podcast application and typing in Charlie Kirk Show.
Get involved with Turning Point USA today at tpusa.com at tpusa.com.
It is your starting point to get involved in the fight for America.
You can attend our Young Women's Leadership Summit, which promises to be an incredibly exciting event at tpusa.com slash YWLS.
I will see many of you in Dallas in just a few days.
As always, you can email me freedom at charliekirk.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 Thomas J. Baker, author of the excellent book, The Fall of the FBI, how a once great agency became a threat to democracy.
Mr. Baker, welcome to the program.
Tell us about your book.
Well, the book I try to treat in the book, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
And so I begin off with talking about the FBI, what it was that people remember, some exciting cases, some historical cases.
And then I go into the bad, some injustice I've seen, and then the ugly, which is the events of the last three, four, or five years.
So tell us about some of the specifics of it.
Tell us some of the bad and the ugly.
The good we can maybe get to later, but the bad and the ugly interest me the most.
Yeah, I don't want to, I didn't want to be too much of a downer, so I did put that good stuff in there.
And the good stuff reflects to the present ugly.
For instance, in the past, the emphasis with the special agents and the training and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, how important that was.
A lot of the things that we were taught, we saw that they were ignored in the Russian collusion investigation and in several incidents since then.
The Durham report validated an awful lot of what I said about the ugly.
I had the benefit when I was writing last fall of having, and it was available to everybody online, of Durham's two indictments of Denchenko and of Sussman.
And he really laid out quite a case in that.
Of course, nothing like the 300-page Durham report, which showed eventually, ultimately, the contention of my book that there was absolutely, absolutely no justification for opening the Russian collusion investigation, nor the succeeding obstruction of justice investigation, which was mainly handled by the special prosecutor, Bob Mueller.
So let me ask you, to what extent are the current leadership of the FBI, Christopher Wray and his lieutenants, what do they see their role to be?
Because I think you're obviously you're right.
There's some legitimately great work the FBI does when they go after child sex traffickers, they go after money embezzlers, you know, foreign spies.
All that stuff is legitimate, and I hope it continues.
What drives me nuts is the, and, is the overreach, the spying, the FISA abuse, the political persecution, obviously going after selective prosecutions.
What is, in their own words, do you think, how does the FBI leadership view themselves?
Because they look awfully political with their decisions, their motives, and their actions.
Yes.
And every time one of these, and you elaborated on some of them, one of these incidents happens, ultimately, it seems that the bad apples are let go.
They're either fired, as Comey, Struck McCabe, were fired.
Two of the agents involved in the Governor Whitmer kidnapping fiasco were let go.
Two of the agents involved in the gymnas case were let go.
All of these bad things that have come to light, culminating last fall when an assistant agent in charge of the Washington field office was walked out the door at the end of a Friday afternoon when it came to light very clearly that he had been involved in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop investigation.
And in each and every one of those instances, Director Ray says in so many words, well, the bad apples are gone.
And he refuses to look at the underlying problem of the culture of the FBI.
That's the problem why these things are happening.
That's what has to be addressed.
But even after the Durham report, 306 of 316 pages, when you read it, it's clear there's a cultural problem throughout the Bureau.
There are many, many people involved in that whole fiasco.
And John Durham did a great service in writing that report at the end of it.
And he said in his conclusion that the FBI needs to be continuously reminded of this.
That's what John Durham said.
In response, Director Ray said, none of the people who were involved in that are with us any longer.
Do you have any faith that the FBI can be restored to first an institution we trust, and then, of course, more importantly, one that's actually doing legitimate work, not acting as a Democrat political super PAC?
I hope it can be.
It's a hard job to change culture, but it can be done.
The first thing that has to be done is to recognize that there's a problem and then to reform it.
Hopefully, in two years, we'll have a new attorney general, a new director, and that'll get on its way and be done.
In the meantime, there's still a role for Congress to play.
The cultural change, really, the FBI has to do itself and recognize the need for it.
And there are more and more people speaking out.
More and more people are leaving the FBI in the recent year or two who are speaking out about this.
But the Congress has a role to play too, particularly, you mentioned Pfizer abuse.
Congress can legislatively correct a lot of that.
So let's get into some of the, here's another question for you.
From your experience, how much of this is a DC bad apple problem and how much of this has metastasized into other field offices?
Is this a cultural issue or is it mostly stemmed from Washington, D.C.
Well, initially, and a lot of people, myself included, thought it was mainly centered in Washington.
But the fact is that since this cultural change, which I can go back to and explain that a little bit further, but since this cultural change has happened, a new cadre of individuals, intelligence analysts, have risen to the fore.
They're very, very woke generally.
They don't operate in the constitutional guidelines that special agents are trained into.
And I've had people in the current FBI, working-level agents, tell me that these intelligence analysts are driving the agenda.
So they're the people come up with, there's no kind way to say it, these crackpot ideas, such as targeting people who like a particular flag, like the Betsy Ross flag, Or the targeting of Catholics who prefer to worship in the Latin language.
There's crazy ideas, and those people are all over now.
They're in every field office.
And that's where a lot of these problems are coming from.
But all of that is part of the package of the cultural change, which was started by Bob Mueller and then exacerbated by the poor leadership of James Collins.
So just to repeat that, though, was the cultural change that Bob Mueller turned the FBI into an intelligence operation, not a law enforcement organization.
Yes.
And that happened, as I believe you know, because you're very well informed on this whole history.
But Mueller became the director of the FBI just a few days before the September 11th attacks, which happened on a Tuesday.
The following Saturday morning, he was summoned to Camp David to meet with President George W. Bush, and he thought to give a report in the investigation.
And what had happened in just those three and a half days between the Tuesday attack and the Saturday morning is the FBI did what it does best, investigate.
And in those three and a half days, they had identified all 19 hijackers, their connections, their financing, their travel, everything about them, the connections going back to Al-Qaeda.
And when he was done with his report, George W. Bush just looked across that long oak table at him and said, I don't care about that.
Panic and Pro-Life Lessons 00:08:01
I just want to know how you're going to prevent the next one.
And Mueller told us after that, he resolved he was bound and determined to change the culture of the FBI, and that's the word he used, from a law enforcement mindset to an intelligence mindset.
That had a lot of unintended consequences, and most of them were bad.
I think it's worth repeating how much of our politics and our policy and our language really changed and goes back to 9-11.
9-11 was so dramatic that what came next, in some ways, we had no idea what we were inviting in.
We were changing agencies, creating new ones.
We were recalibrating laws and customs.
And I think one of the lessons is: hey, when you're in panic, it's not always the best time to change what has already been proven.
Panic is legitimate, not the best time to do big decisions.
Because look at what we're dealing with now.
We are dealing with 20 years, 22 years later, an agency that is so off the rails based on your wonderful book.
The book is The Fall of the FBI: How a Once Great Agency Became a Threat to Democracy.
Hey, everybody.
Look, if you're pro-life, listen carefully.
It's important to advocate for pro-life laws.
I'm all in favor of that.
Pro-life legislation, supporting pro-life candidates, but you have to simultaneously do the other thing.
I believe you actually have an obligation, which is to support women in need and babies in need that are at risk of being aborted.
Look, when you introduce a girl to her baby by providing an ultrasound, you're giving her the truth at the most critical and important time in her life.
85% of the time when they actually see the baby, they choose life.
Now, mind you, pre-born provides resources.
They provide diapers, baby clothes.
And I encourage you, if you're pro-life, to pray about this.
Are you giving money to actually support the unborn if you are voting for pro-life?
Look, $140 gives five mothers a free ultrasound and saves babies.
$280 can save 10 babies, and just $28 a month can save a baby a month for less than a dollar a day.
I'm a donor to this organization, and you should be too.
A $15,000 gift will provide an ultrasound machine that will save lives for years to come.
Whether you want to save one baby or five or hundreds, this opportunity is just a phone call or click away.
I think the world of pre-born, I give money financially.
And every one of you that are pro-life, I believe you have a duty and an obligation to go to preborn.org slash Kirk and give as you can, give your best gift or call 833-850-2229.
That is 833-850-BABY.
Go to preborn.org slash Kirk.
That is preborn.org/slash Kirk.
So let me ask you, when do you think the fall began?
I mean, your history of the FBI goes all the way back to the assassination attempt of Ronald Reagan.
Was it prevalent in the 80s or 90s, or was it really that kind of turning point of Bob Mueller changing the fiber and the DNA of the FBI?
Oh, it was definitely the turning point when Bob Mueller changed things.
Before that, the agents, we were so grounded in the Constitution.
I mean, that is what we live by, the first 10 amendments, particularly the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment, that some people see as a break or a handicap to law enforcement or police enforcement.
But we were told by our legal instructors to embrace the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment.
Don't see them as an obstacle, understand them.
And we were given a pocket copy of the Constitution and told to keep it in our breast pocket.
And one of our instructors told us when you're interviewing an American or when you're searching someone's home, if you have that Constitution in your pocket, it's going to be very hard for you to go off the track and do something wrong.
I mean, that was the mentality then.
It may sound corny to some today, but that was the mentality.
But then Bob Mueller set about to change the FBI away from a swear-to-tell-the-truth law enforcement organization to an intelligence organization.
And the difference, Charlie, in culture is profound.
In a law enforcement organization, people are working every day when the day comes that they're going to have to stand up in court and raise their right hand and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a judge or jury.
That's quite different than an intelligence agency that deals in deception and deceit and just chases after intelligence.
In law enforcement, everything's in a straight line.
There's a complaint or a crime committed, and you go in a straight line to try and find the perpetrator and try and convict the perpetrator and solve the crime.
In intelligence, you just go round and around in a circle.
You just keep gathering more and more intelligence going around in a circle.
And that's why we have these crackpot ideas today coming out of the Bureau to investigate Latin Mass Catholics and to look at mothers and fathers at school board meetings.
It's all just in this no boundaries intelligence chasing process.
So I want to talk about the 1990s.
There are three events that can stand out in FBI history.
And I'm wondering how that falls into your history and your book, The Fall of the FBI, and how it might have changed maybe an us versus them mentality.
Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Oklahoma City.
Those three things stand out as far as domestic law enforcement situations that resulted in a less than ideal circumstance, right?
Ruby Ridge, which was, I believe, up in Idaho, which resulted in somebody dead.
And then Waco, which I think we can all say was probably poorly handled in a variety of different ways.
And then finally, of course, Oklahoma City.
Leading up into the fall of the FBI, did these events mean anything to you, or are they just kind of blips on the radar in the history that you account in the fall of the FBI?
Well, I remember all three events rather well.
I was overseas when two of them occurred and we even in the legats around the world were getting leads and responding to them.
It was a full court press.
I think a lot of lessons were learned.
Ruby Ridge, I believe the U.S. Marshals were the first ones on the scene of that thing.
Then the FBI came in.
There was a always there was a problem in coordination and communications.
Hopefully, a lot of that has been straightened out between agencies.
Also, the training was always very, once I said about the Constitution, that you did not shoot, you did not use firearms, you did not use deadly force unless you felt your own life or the life of someone else was in danger.
And that's always been the guideline.
Waco, you had a similar situation.
The case began with the ATF.
Then the FBI got involved.
There was probably some coordination.
There was fighting in the team there between the hostage negotiators and the tactical people.
Hopefully, a lot of that's been ironed out.
And Oklahoma City, once again, people went off in different tracks looking at different things, but it was the court of law approved this.
It was two Americans essentially were responsible for that horrendous, horrendous bombing.
But in the big, big picture, Charlie, you use the expression of blimp on the radar.
I think you might be right.
I think it, because it's when you get to September 11th and the whole paradigm changes and shifted, and some people would say for a good reason, but then, oh, as you said, because people were in a panic.
But at the end of the day, changes were made that really do now, in retrospect, jeopardize our liberty.
Woke Banks on Sunday 00:02:35
Yes.
Not to mention, I believe in the 90s was the centennial park bombing as well in Atlanta, Georgia, with Eric Rudolph, who was on the run, which was a little bit of a PR issue for the FBI.
I want to tell you guys about something every single one of you can benefit from, and you guys need to change.
It's who we use when we go to get mortgages.
Look, I balance a lot of stuff.
I'm traveling all the time, my show, and I recently needed to get a mortgage to get something figured out.
And it was a tough one.
And I didn't want to go to those woke banks.
I, you know, I did previous, my last mortgage we did, it was with a woke bank, and they were just, they were bureaucratic and they donate the BLM and the gay agenda and all that stuff.
And I said, what can I do to actually, and I said, of course, duh, hello, andrewandtodd.com.
They're Christian.
They're conservative.
Our worldviews are aligned.
They're fabulous people.
When I needed a mortgage, of course, I went to my friends, Andrew Delray and Todd of Aiken at CR Pacific.
And look, this is the first time I used them because, you know, we were just recently started doing stuff on the show and partners.
I said, okay, let's see how it is.
You know, we do a lot of things together.
It's blown away.
They respond within minutes.
They walk me through everything.
They took care of all those details I didn't have time for.
And I said, boy, guys, I now see how great you guys actually are.
Responsive.
And yes, no more of this woke stuff.
Stop using the woke banks.
Oh, I want to refinance my home and I'm going to go to a bank that hates me.
Stop doing that.
Instead, go to AndrewNTodd.com.
So if you or someone you know is moving from blue states to red states, AndroidTodd.com.
Have an aging family member that needs financial relief because you maybe are reverse mortgage, AndrewNTodd.com.
Are you self-employed and finding it hard to qualify?
Or first-time homebuyer?
AndrewNTodd.com.
Again, what I love, again, I'm just friends with them.
So I could tell you, I have no other reason to say this except that it's true.
They're fabulous.
They work hard.
We go out to dinner together.
They're great people.
So don't depend on those woke banks, the big banks.
They do a terrible job, by the way.
They're funding all the destructive stuff.
They want centralized bank digital currency.
They're all part of the great reset.
This is a group of guys.
They do a great job.
And stop depending on woke banks.
For what I needed, I saw it firsthand.
They got it done for me.
And it was very complicated.
It was a ficket.
It was a maze.
It was a labyrinth.
And they said, oh, you got to do this and this.
And I'll make this phone call.
We'll do this and this paperwork.
And again, these other banks that I deal with, it's like, here's 955,000 pages to sign and they don't call you back and they don't work weekends.
I had a problem with one of the things on the process because it was one thing that wasn't filled out.
And they respond on a Sunday within minutes.
You're trying to get a response from a woke bank on a Sunday.
You'll say, sorry, no response.
Durham Report Abuse of Authority 00:09:29
So check it out.
It's AndrewandTodd.com, 888, 888, 1172.
That's how you call them and say, Charlie Kirk sent you.
You might actually get them on the phone.
Again, they're value-aligned, honest, trustworthy, wonderful people.
I use them.
You should use them too.
Super responsive, blown away.
And I could say, if they're good for me, they're good for you.
Love these guys.
AndrewandTodd.com, 888, 888, 1172.
And finally, some of you might say, oh, Charlie, bad time to buy a home.
I don't know about that.
You should look what's happening.
Commercial real estate is one thing.
Private single-family home ownership, it might actually stabilize and go up in the next year.
If you're young, it might be the time to get in.
Think about it, pray about it.
But most importantly, go to AndrewandTodd.com for all your mortgage needs.
Great guys, AndrewandTodd.com.
So, Thomas, let me ask you: when the Patriot Act was being passed and all of this was being implemented, were you still in the Bureau?
Yes.
Yes, that's about when I left, in fact.
And what happened, the Patriot Act, and some of that's been modified too.
But after September 11th, other laws were amended and modified.
And then the rush and the pressure of the days, people didn't notice at the time.
And one very significant one was the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which John Durham in his report spends a lot of time on and which was clearly abused during the Trump collusion investigation, or of course hurricane is the code name.
So the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Pfizer, was first passed and put into operation in 1978, and it had two specific aspects to it.
It was to be used only to gather intelligence, not to gather evidence for prosecution, and it was only to be used against foreign agents resident within the United States.
Now, you can guess who those were diplomats and similar.
And after September 11th, the act has been modified numerous times, and now it can be used against U.S. persons, which includes not just U.S. citizens, but legal aliens and U.S. corporations.
It's a very intrusive tool.
And it was really, we can see the abuse of it with specificity in Crossfire Hurricane, where they had four Pfizer warrants over the course of a year targeted at this individual, Carter Page, who at the end of the day had nothing to do with anything and was doing nothing wrong and was not an agent of Russia or anybody else.
Yet he was subject to the Pfizer surveillance, very intrusive surveillance.
It's more intrusive than people imagine.
People think of simple wiretapping, but with Pfizer, they monitor all your communications.
So today that means your emails, your texts, your instant messaging, everything.
And unlike years ago, when a wiretap was ongoing from that moment forward, the way information today is stored in the cloud, once you have a Pfizer warrant on somebody, it looks back at information in the past.
So it's very intrusive.
And this says, again, it started with quote-unquote good intentions to go after al-Qaeda, go after Islamic terrorists.
But it turns out that you build this entire Leviathan and you have a supply and demand problem.
Eventually, it almost becomes this irresistible temptation, correct?
Correct.
And there's a requirement with Pfizer reporting to the Pfizer judges in Washington.
It lags about a year or two behind, but the numbers are reported.
So in the first couple of years that it was put in action in the late 70s, early 80s, there were only a couple of hundred Pfizer warrants a year.
You could almost, and it's a secret, but you can almost guess where and who most of those were on.
Then by September 11th, it jumped up to 1,000.
And now since then, it's 2,03,000 a year.
And we now know from the Inspector General, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, who looked at some of this stuff in the wake of Russia Hurricane, we now know that there were hundreds and hundreds, if perhaps thousands of these warrants are directed against U.S. persons.
And with almost, and what animates me and our audience, though, is the lack of accountability to the actual police officers, quote unquote, with the badges that abuse it.
And so the Durham report was obviously, you know, very clear, but to date, there has not been anybody that is serving prison time for violating these laws.
And it was not inconsequential.
These lies and this abuse has real material harm, not just to the agency's reputation, but also to the continuation.
And then Bob Mueller being appointed a special prosecutor for the Russia stuff, LART.
So this stuff grows and grows and grows.
And the truth is able to circle the globe 10 times before, I mean, the lies are able to circle the globe 10 times before the truth ever gets out of the gate.
So do you think these people will ever be held accountable for what they have done?
In terms of prosecution, probably not.
What happened in a lot of cases, Charlie, I'm not disagreeing with you because some of it, in my mind, was a violation of the law.
But what a lot of it was, and Durham is clear on this too, was an abuse of power.
In other words, when you look back at all the things that happened in that Russian pollution investigation, take General Flynn and others.
They were unmasked when their names came up.
The people who did that had the authority to do it, but it was an abuse.
And in the Pfizer warrant, which Durham makes clear, was based mainly on the steel dossier.
And he also makes clear that by the time he got looking at it, we knew everything in the steel dossier was phony belonging, just made-up stuff.
And what he found out in doing his interviews of people up and down the chain of command was that a lot of people suspected there, or suspected at the time, there wasn't enough probable cause, but yet nobody, apparently, nobody spoke out at that point.
So it's a combination of an abuse of authority and a lot of really slipshod work.
So let me ask you about some of your colleagues that you served with or might still be there.
What is their current attitude?
What was the reaction amongst your friends or people that served when the Durham report came out?
Well, for the most part, and the people that I talked to, it just reinforced what they already knew or suspected.
And I've talked to several agents, working-level agents, actually, who have left in the past year or so, and one or two who are actually involved in aspects of CrossFire Hurricane.
And they were kept in the dark about a lot of things along the way.
That was another thing that Bob Mueller put in place and Comey kept this compartmentalization, just like an intelligence agency.
It used to be in law enforcement.
Everybody talked to the people on the right and the left of them.
With this centralization and compartmentalization that Mueller put in place, people didn't know.
They just knew what their one little assignment was.
They just assumed, as I did in the past, that there was some legitimacy to this.
And I remember one conversation was related to me by one of the two people who were involved in it between the agent in charge in the Washington field at the time and the agent in charge of the New York office.
And they were hearing bits and pieces of it, but they didn't have control of it because it was all being run out of headquarters, which was highly irregular.
And they just said to each other, which I would have said too, well, they must have more because what they saw, they didn't see enough for an investigation, and they just assumed they must have more.
Well, it turns out they didn't have more.
But that's what you get is, and once again, Comey and Mueller are responsible for this, centralizing everything so you eliminated all the levels of independent review that you had in traditional investigation, where you had a case agent, then the field supervisor above the case agent, then the special agent in charge of that office.
Those layers of review before the case went to headquarters.
In the first fire hurricane, you had somebody, a deputy assistant director like Struck, opening the case, and then the next day flying to London to conduct the first interview himself.
No independent judgment involved.
It was bound to end badly.
And it seems as if they either never thought they would get caught or they didn't care or they thought the ends justify the means and or a mixture of all those different things.
And when you have dirty cops, it really ruins their reputation there.
The book is The Fall of the FBI.
Mr. Baker, any other thoughts you want to make here on your book or about the FBI in general?
No, I just hope and pray.
It breaks my heart to even discuss these things.
I mean, I'm not taking any form of happiness in this.
Fighting Larry Fink 00:06:08
The Durham Report did validate a lot of stuff in my book.
And I really think the more people who read my book, the better off our country will be, because there'll be more people agitating for change.
This is still a democracy, and people, a lot of people expressing their voice can have an impact.
They can get the book on Amazon.com or at Barnes ⁇ Noble or wherever.
And I really think people need to read it.
As I said, people need to read the Durham Report.
The book is the fall of the FBI.
Thomas Baker, thank you so much.
Thank you, Charlie.
Thank you for all you're doing.
Well, we're doing our best.
God bless you.
Thanks so much.
What is the woke?
Nikki Haley was asked to define wokeism and she just sputtered.
It is an emphasis on injustice and equality and calling something unjust until you control it.
It's calling something unfair until you control it.
It really is weaponized complaining.
Blake came up with that.
I think it's brilliant.
It's just people that would complain no matter what situation they're in.
They're largely disagreeable, anti-social people.
It is an emphasis on equity, not equality.
And it is imperative that we crush the idea pathogen of critical theory, postmodernism, post-structuralism, subjectivism everywhere we possibly can.
So this has real life consequences.
And I'm going to tell you about one of the ways that we go about crushing it.
And woke is very similar to pornography.
Blake, who said it?
Was it Rehnquist or was it a woman?
I can't remember.
There was somebody on the Supreme Court.
He's either Sandra Day O'Connor or Rehnquist, big difference, who said, pornography, you just know it when you see it, is just one of the great quotes ever.
And was it Potter Stewart, really?
I'm off on that.
I thought it was Rehnquist or Sandra Day O'Connor.
You know it when you see it.
That's kind of the woke thing.
It's just so, it's such an affront to the natural law.
It's just such a violation to our reason.
It's so offensive to our sensibilities.
You just know it and you say, yeah, that's not right.
So, for example, the front page of Google's homepage on the 79th anniversary of D-Day is some people having tea in a meadow.
And it should be people storming Normandy Beach.
But who cares about that, right?
Too many white men, too much white rage, too much masculinity.
So let me show you the consequence of this.
This is the $10 trillion man, the man who runs BlackRock, Larry Fink, talking about gender and diversity and equity.
So he is on the solution side.
And I say that.
It's really not the solution.
But if you do not question the diagnosis, then you're going to allow these power-hungry people to run over you.
So a takeover of a country through woke tyranny happens in two parts.
The first part is they have to misdiagnose and then they put forward a quote-unquote remedy to their misdiagnosis.
So Larry Fink is on the poor remedy or the damaging remedy side of the equation, play cut one.
It's just, you have to force behaviors.
And if you don't force behaviors, whether it's gender or race or just any way you want to say the composition of your team, you're going to be impacted.
And that's just not recruiting.
It is development, as Ken said.
How do you force change, though?
How do you do something more radical to enhance diversity and inclusion?
Because it has to be imbued in the culture of a firm.
And it has to be talked about.
It has to be shown.
Behaviors across the entire firm in every region have to be similar.
And every citizen of the firm has to understand what is acceptable behaviors and what are unacceptable.
Now, you can lead yourself to believe that, that we have to force companies, again, force companies, gender, race, and all this, if you actually believe that there's this massive systemic problem.
But there isn't.
That's why it's so important to go after the root of the flawed logic.
The false premise will create a misleading, misdirected trajectory where we are so far out of the barn.
All of a sudden we're talking about reorganizing our corporations, all based on a lie.
And this is why Tim Scott running for the presidency, I am in full support of, not for him becoming president, but if he does nothing more than goes after the idea pathogen of America being racist, we then can deconstruct and fight Larry Fink on trying to change our corporations.
God bless Tim Scott for this.
Play cut 17.
You have indicated that you don't believe in systemic racism.
One of the things I think about, and one of the reasons why I'm on the show is because of the comments that were made, frankly, on this show, that the only way for a young African-American kid to be successful in this country is to be the exception and not the rule.
That is a dangerous, offensive, disgusting message to send to our young people today that the only way to succeed is by being the exception.
So the fact of the matter is we've had an African-American president, African-American vice president.
We've had two African Americans to be secretaries of the state.
So how do you beat Larry Fink imposing ESG?
You go after the premise that it's built on.
ESG loses power if you're able to disprove and disempower the entire premise they have, which is America is systemically racist.
Climate change is looming catastrophe.
And we need activist corporations.
And Tim Scott running for the presidency, really dunking on those low IQ wine moms on the view is a step in the right direction.
God bless you, Tim Scott, for that.
You did a wonderful job.
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.
Export Selection