All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
April 11, 2024 - The Charlie Kirk Show
34:16
What's the FISA Holdup?
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Political Prosecutions and Lawfare 00:10:26
Hey everybody, it's on the Charlie Kirk Show.
Mike Davis and Jim Jordan.
Mike Davis discusses his new movie coming up and Jim Jordan, the latest news out of the House of Representatives.
Email me directly, freedom at charliekirk.com and become a member.
It's members.charliekirk.com.
That is members.charlikirk.com to get involved and to be a member and to support the program and ask us questions directly and to listen to all episodes advertiser-free.
It's members.charlikirk.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.
Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals.
Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com.
That is noblegoldinvestments.com.
It's where I buy all of my gold.
Go to noblegoldinvestments.com.
Joining us now is Mike Davis, who does a great job and has a new film project that he wants to discuss with us.
Mike, welcomes the program.
Let's get started and play the trailer.
Let's play cut 111, please.
Four corrupt, politically motivated prosecutors.
One target, Donald Trump.
They say they're upholding the law, but a close examination reveals politics of the very worst kind meant to influence the 2024 election.
Investigations unprecedented in American history, part of a broader attempt to silence and penalize a president who challenged the status quo.
You have four or five different prosecutions in different form on different highly aggressive theories and applications of the law.
On the eve of an election of the president of the United States, can there be any doubt that there's a sentiment of this is get Trump.
Get Trump.
These prosecutions against President Trump, both the criminal prosecution along with the civil fraud prosecution, is blatant election interference.
It's Democrat lawfare to take out President Trump.
They fear that they can't beat Trump on November 5th, 2024.
And so they just want to throw him in prison for the rest of his life.
Revealing the depth of four politically motivated prosecutions.
Chasing Trump, political prosecutions, justice gone wrong.
Mike, tell us all about it.
Looks excellent.
Yeah, thank you for having me on, Charlie.
Chasing Trump is produced by the good people at American Greatness.
And I was pleased to volunteer my time to participate on this important documentary because it shows this is Democrat lawfare and election interference driven by Biden and his White House counsel and his Justice Department to take out Trump on many different fronts.
They have four unprecedented criminal indictments.
The first one of those starts on Monday.
Sorry, respondent Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg is bringing an unprecedented indictment against Trump.
A trial starts on Monday for the non-felony of a businessman settling a nuisance claim.
And these Democrat operatives have transformed this, what would be at best, time-barred bookkeeping misdemeanors from seven years ago.
Somehow they've turned these into felony charges against Trump, like 34 felony charges that the prior Manhattan DA Cy Vance, the Manhattan U.S. Attorney, the Federal Election Commission, and Alvin Bragg himself declined to prosecute until Matthew Colangelo got deployed from the Biden Justice Department, a senior Biden Justice Department political appointee to resurrect this zombie case against Trump that starts on Monday.
And that's just one of the four cases.
You also have Alvin, you also have Jack Smith, I'm sorry, charging President Trump down in Florida for the former president having his presidential records in the office of former president, which is allowed by the Presidential Records Act.
At the same time, they gave Biden a pass for his clear espionage from when he was the vice president and even a senator where he made $8 million on his book advance when he intentionally gave classified records to his ghostwriter.
And not a damn thing happened to Biden for clear espionage, yet they're going after Trump for presidential records he's allowed to have.
You also have two prosecutors going after Trump, Fannie Willis down in Georgia, Fulton County, Georgia, in Atlanta, and Jack Smith going after Trump for objecting to a presidential election, which is allowed by the Electoral Count Act of 1887.
These are political prosecutions.
We've been talking about this for nearly two years.
Charlie, we've been way out in front of everyone on this, and it's coming to fruition.
It's starting on Monday with this Bragg trial.
The American people are going to tune into this trial and see what a bogus trial this is.
And this is Democrat lawfare.
This is election interference.
This is going to backfire on Biden and the Democrats.
And this Chasing Trump documentary lays this out.
So, Mike, I think that it's hurting the Democrats politically, but they're moving forward at a rapid pace.
The acceleration is really disturbing.
And it is that of a desperate, dying third world regime.
So, do you think there's any chance?
I'm just going to ask you plainly and bluntly, Mike Davis.
Do you think there's any chance that Donald Trump avoids conviction at this upcoming trial?
No.
I mean, you're dealing with a biased, a George Soros-funded Manhattan DA, Matthew Colangelo being deployed from the Biden Justice Department.
This Democrat Manhattan Judge Juan Mershon donated to Biden versus Trump in 2020.
Judge Juan Mershon donated to another anti-Trump group.
His adult daughter, Lauren Michon, is a leading Democrat consultant who's consulted for Biden and Kamala Harris and many Democrats.
She has a financial stake in this criminal trial starting on Monday over which her father is presiding.
She's fundraising off of this criminal trial, these criminal proceedings.
And Judge Juan Murshon refuses to recuse in violation of New York law.
And when Trump raises this issue in a motion to recuse and raises this publicly, this Judge Juan Mershon responds by saying that Trump is somehow making violent threats against Judge Mershon and his adult daughter.
Apparently, when you raise evidence of a judge's bias, that somehow is a violent threat.
And this Judge Mershon has illegally, unconstitutionally gagged President Trump, where he cannot talk about Matthew Colangelo getting sent from the Biden Justice Department to go after Trump with this unprecedented indictment of a former president who happens to be the leading presidential candidate.
President Trump can't talk about Lauren Mershon and how she's making money off of her dad's trial of President Trump.
I mean, this is lawfare.
This is election interference.
There's a reason these Democrats waited 30 months to bring these four different indictments in four different places.
And in three of these places, New York, D.C., and Atlanta, you have these Democrat judges, these Democrat prosecutors, these Democrats, other attorneys, these Democrat witnesses, and these Democrat hellholes.
There's no chance that Trump is going to get a fair trial anywhere.
And that's the point.
This is election interference because they know they can't beat Trump on November 5th, 2024.
So they want to bankrupt him.
They want to disqualify him from the ballot, and they want him to die in prison.
Yes, they do.
And so let me ask you now, Mike, do you think there's any chance the federal cases will be heard before November?
They could.
It would be very hard because on the federal case with Jack Smith on January 6th, remember, it is not a crime to object to a presidential election.
It's allowed by the Electoral Count Act of 1887.
Democrats objected to Republican wins in 1968, 2000, 2004, 2016.
You don't see Al Gore and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton in prison.
You also have a First Amendment right to object.
And President Trump has raised the issue of presidential immunity in that case.
If you're going to charge President Trump, if Jack Smith is going to charge President Trump for contemplating firing his acting attorney general, that is clearly a presidential act.
That is clearly covered by presidential immunity.
So the Supreme Court is going to have to decide that case.
There's going to be oral arguments later this month on April 25th.
I presume the Supreme Court's going to rule on presidential immunity by the end of June.
And then I presume the Supreme Court's going to hold that the presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for their official acts, just like federal judges, just like members of Congress.
The case will get remanded to Judge Chucken, this Obama judge in D.C., and she'll have a mini trial on what is Jack Smith alleging that's within President Trump's presidential powers that are immune from prosecution versus what did Trump do in his personal capacity that are not.
If that happens, it will be very difficult for Jack Smith to try Trump for January 6th in D.C.
Now, this Mar-a-Lago case for the presidential records where Garland and Jack Smith have charged Trump with espionage while Garland gave Biden a pass for Biden's clear espionage when Trump is protected by the Presidential Records Act.
It doesn't look likely that that case will get to trial because there are so many pretrial issues.
Protecting Fundamental Liberties 00:14:38
But at least in Florida, we know with Judge Eileen Cannon that she's a fair judge.
She's going to ensure that Trump gets a fair trial in Florida.
And she's not going to be a rubber stamp for Trump.
Far from it.
She's denied many of Trump's motions, but she's going to do what any judge is supposed to do, which is to protect the criminal defendant's constitutional rights and to make sure he gets a fair trial.
Hey there, investing feels overwhelming right now, doesn't it?
So complicated, so many decisions.
But leaving your money in the bank, not so great.
It's losing value every single day.
So if it's stressing you out and driving you nuts, invest with Noble Gold Investments.
Their precious metals are simple and real.
There isn't a company on the stock market that was around 2,000 years ago, but gold was.
It's always been there through wars, disasters, and turmoil.
Reliable, dependable, and authentic.
That's why you can't go wrong with precious metals.
They've always had your back.
Noble Gold Investments, American-based experts, will show you how to set and forget your IRA or 401k.
You'll get a dedicated professional assigned to you.
No hassle, no call centers.
Colin Plume runs Noble Gold Investments.
We've had him on the show before.
He's awesome.
I love hanging out with him.
He's terrific.
I can vouch for his integrity and for his knowledge about gold and silver.
In fact, I have my silver right next to me right here.
I buy all of my gold from Noble Gold Investments.
I have vetted them top to bottom.
In fact, I know a billionaire that just made a very big purchase of gold from Noble Gold Investments.
So visit NobleGoldInvestments.com to claim your gold coin.
This month, Noble Gold Investments is giving a free quarter ounce gold standard coin qualifying IRA investment.
That is noblegoldinvestments.com, noblegoldinvestments.com.
So Mike, help me understand.
The polling is showing that this is not helping Donald Trump.
I mean, not helping Democrats.
It's helping Trump.
Why are Democrats continuing on the lawfare campaign?
Why have they not pressed the brakes?
Well, if they were smart, they would, because at the Article III project, we've done over 3,000 media hits in the last nearly two years, including many times on your show.
And we've helped change the politics of this, where these Democrats thought they were going to bring these indictments and just take out Trump.
It was going to be too messy.
And Republican primary voters would just say, we can't deal with this.
Let's go with someone else.
They tried the same thing during the Kavanaugh confirmation, where I was the chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
They thought they would just bring six bogus allegations against Kavanaugh, and it would be too messy for Republicans who are cowards and don't have a spine.
And Republicans would just throw Kavanaugh overboard.
And I think they thought the same thing here, that Republicans would just throw Trump overboard.
And it's had the opposite effect.
It's actually emboldened Republicans.
It took a while for many of these Republicans to get on board.
It was pretty lonely out there for six months or so, but they got on board, and this is backfiring badly.
We are taking, we are turning lemons into lemonade, and we are going to make sure that these Democrat prosecutors and these Democrat judges and these Democrat hillholes in New York, D.C., and Atlanta understand that the American people, not Democrat operatives, get to choose the president of the United States on November 5th, 2024.
So the other one, Mike, that we can't forget about is the confiscation of Donald Trump's business assets.
And there was all this drama about posting bond.
It is part of this lawfare campaign.
It is under appeal.
What is the status of that as they're trying to deprive Trump of his cash and his freedom?
This is truly outrageous and scary and dangerous, what New York Attorney General Tish James is doing to Trump, because this is so much bigger than Trump.
They went after Trump for the non-fraud of a businessman paying back sophisticated Wall Street banks in full on time as agreed with interest.
They rigged the case so it was front of this Democrat Manhattan judge, Arthur Ingeron, a total partisan clown.
And they came up with like this $500 billion damages award when all the banks got paid back in full.
All the banks are happy and all the banks would gladly do business with Trump going forward.
No one was defrauded, but Tish James used this to go after Trump.
They got this outrageously large damages award, unconstitutionally punitive damages award.
In order for Trump to file an appeal, to pursue an appeal on this clearly illegal, clearly unconstitutional judgment on many different fronts, they made Trump put up this bond, which was just an outrageously high bonds.
The appellate court reduced the bond, but it's still too high.
Trump was able to get the assets to come up with this bond.
And now Tish James is saying that's not good enough.
She's going to apparently try to go take his property from him.
Good luck to her, Tish James.
And again, this is so much bigger than Trump, because if they can do this to a billionaire, former and likely future president, just imagine what they can do to the rest of us.
Why would any person, why would any businessman want to invest in New York if you have these partisan Democrat prosecutors and judges who can bring third world Marxist tactics and just take away your property overnight without due process, without fair hearing, without following the Constitution?
This is unacceptable.
These Democrats have crossed the Rubicon with their lawfare and election interference.
That's right.
Mike, plug your documentary one more time, how people can find it, all the details surrounding that.
Yeah, I appreciate that.
It's coming out on Monday.
It's called Chasing Trump.
I just volunteered to appear in this thing, but it's American Greatness, the good people at American Greatness who are producing and getting out this documentary chasing Trump about this Democrat lawfare and election interference.
And it's going to be a game changer.
Mike, thank you so much.
Excellent work.
Talk to you soon.
Check it out, Chasing Trump.
Thank you.
Thank you, Charlie.
Hey, this is Charlie Kirk, and I know a lot of you have been suffering under the Biden economy.
Recently, school loan payments have been reinstated.
And for many, it's adding thousands to their monthly expenses.
My friends, Andrew Del Ray and Todd of Akien, they're amazing.
They really helped me through a tough, tough situation recently.
They've been excellent.
They're ethical.
They're just really great people.
They're followers of Jesus Christ, and our worldviews are the same.
I love them.
And so please go to AndrewandTodd.com.
Interest rates are coming down, and they may be able to lower your overall payment.
In fact, one of our team members said, Charlie, is it time to me to own a home?
I sat down.
I went to the numbers.
I said, get in the owner game.
Honestly, enough renting.
You are burning your money renting.
It might be a little bit more to own, but you're building equity.
That's money you'll have for the rest of your life.
Perhaps a reverse mortgage is a perfect solution.
It's about expertise you could trust in times like this.
I can't tell you how helpful they've been for me personally.
They've just been excellent.
Andrew and Todd, I'm honored to call them friends.
We hang out when I go to Orange County together.
They're really great.
So say, Charlie sent me 888-888-1172.
That's 888-888-1172.
They helped me through a mortgage situation recently that was super complex and moving pieces, and it was really, really tough.
And other banks, by the way, wanted nothing to do with it, and they crushed it for me.
10 out of 10.
AndrewNTodd.com.
So check it out right now, AndrewandTodd.com.
Joining us now is Congressman Jim Jordan.
Congressman, thank you for taking the time.
As always, help me understand, Congressman, what is going on with FISA.
I know there was like this procedural vote or a vote to get it to debate.
We believe, and I know you agree, that the FBI, they need to get a warrant.
This unlimited FISA thing is a broken system.
Walk us through it, please.
Yeah.
So look, there are two parts to FISA.
There's the one part where you got the court, and that part was certainly abused relative to spying on President Trump's campaign and all the things that we know that come up with Strzok and Page and all the stuff that we learned about a few years ago.
There's the other part of FISA, which is the 702 database.
And this is where they surveil foreigners.
They collect all this information, but inevitably pick up lots of Americans in this, what I call this giant haystack of information in that data.
And there are hundreds of thousands of searches done on that database each year on Americans using your phone number, your name, or your email address.
And what we're saying is the FBI that spied on a presidential campaign, the FBI that said if you're a parent at a school board meeting, you need to be investigating.
The FBI that said if you're a pro-life Catholic, you're an extremist.
And maybe most important, Charlie, the FBI that said we're going to retaliate against and did retaliate against whistleblowers who came and talked to our committee about those issues.
We don't think that FBI should be able to police themselves, particularly with all those abuses.
So we're saying you got to do what our Constitution and our great system has done for 200 plus years.
You got to go get a warrant.
You can't just let the executive branch do what they want.
The way it works in our country is you want to search American citizens' stuff.
You got to go to a separate and equal branch of government and get a warrant.
And that's what our amendment would require.
Frankly, it was part of the base text that came out of the Judiciary Committee 35 to 2.
It included the warrant in the text.
Now on the floor, you have a base text that doesn't include the warrant.
We're trying to add that back in.
And to me, that is the fundamental fight.
And if it doesn't get back in the bill, I ain't voting for the bill because I think we have to have this fundamental constitutional protection that has served our country so well for so long.
So help me understand because there was a split and I'm getting kind of two different versions of the story from people that I really respect, like you and other members that tried to block this yesterday.
What was the attempt to block yesterday by, you know, Eli Crane and Matt Gates, where they said they wanted to kill the renewal.
So walk me through that.
I think there was a frustration with what they saw was like the pressure and the push against the amendment I just described.
I think there was a frustration with that.
There was also another amendment that we had in the bill that came out of the committee that wasn't part of the rule package and is not being allowed to be offered to the base text as an amendment.
I think there was some concern about that.
And then frankly, I think there was some concern about the length of time for this reauthorization for a five-year time frame.
So I think those were the concerns that the people voted against the rule.
I voted for the rule because I am focused on one thing, winning this warrant requirement.
This to me is the most important thing.
It is a hallmark of our system.
And they can say whatever they want.
The people on the other side say, oh, no, no, this is a U.S. person query.
Well, I tell folks, query is a fancy name for search.
And you're not allowed under our system to just search Americans' information without first getting a warrant from a separate and equal branch of the government, the judicial branch.
So particularly, here's the other thing, Charlie.
The Inspector General reported that 278,000 times the FBI didn't follow their own rules and they illegally searched, didn't follow the procedures in place at the FBI, and they searched this database on U.S. on American citizens.
So if the FBI, they didn't follow their rules before, if you just put new regulations and requirements on them, are they really going to follow them now?
I don't think so.
That's why, again, we think you need this warrant requirement.
So can you talk about the bipartisan element here?
Because it seems as if there are some Democrats that are willing to play ball on this.
Do you anticipate that this could be some bipartisan unity to actually fix FISA?
And what are the legislative prospects?
I mean, we kind of see a strange coalition, Freedom Caucus plus squad, and then more, let's just say, moderate uniparty members in both parties.
Walk us through the dynamics here.
No, it's the dynamics are there because there's been abuses on both sides.
That 278,000 number I gave you of illegal queries that were done to the database by the FBI.
Those included people who were at the January 6th protest.
Those included people who were part of Black Lives Matter in the summer of 2020 at the protests and riots around the country there too.
So there were 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign that were illegally searched.
So that's why you have the bipartisan element, and that's why it came out of the committee.
You know, our committee charter, it's pretty partisan in the Judiciary Committee.
But this bill came out of the committee with a 35 to 2 vote.
Yeah, Jerry Nadler and Jim Jordan on the same page because we understand that the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment and the Constitution all need to be protected.
These are fundamental liberties.
So here's the one question they won't answer too.
Because in our warrant requirement, we have an exception.
If there's an emergency situation, if there's an imminent threat to the security of our country, you can proceed with the search of the database.
But short of that, you got to go get a warrant.
We know that, again, there's a couple hundred thousand times a year that they search this database on U.S. on U.S. persons.
So I asked the question, I said, how many of those several hundred thousand searches aren't covered under the exception in our warrant requirement amendment?
And no one will give me an answer, which should scare us because if it's a big number, that should really frighten us.
And if it's a small number, what's the big deal?
If it's just a few that aren't in this emergency situation, what's the big deal?
But no one will answer that fundamental question, which again, I think raises the concern why we really need it in the first place.
I might have missed this, Congressman, in all the macro discussion I've had with members, but a question we're getting from our audience: what is the time horizon here?
Wouldn't it be smart to say, okay, we don't trust you at all.
Here's these 10 reforms.
You guys get six months and then come back again.
This 10-year horizon, it just, it is a gift to the intelligence and the administrative state.
What are we talking about as far as timing?
That right now, what's being proposed is to take it from a five-year reauthorization of the 702 program that we've been talking about to a simple two to a shorter two-year time or two-year reauthorization time period.
I think that's fine.
What I care about, but again, the warrant requirement is the most important.
Even with the two-year reauthorization, if the warrant requirement's not on it, I ain't voting for it.
I'm not going to pass that because I think that is, again, I can't stress it enough.
I know you understand it.
The Case for Warrants 00:05:10
Your audience understands it.
You have the law enforcement, the government would love to just be able to go look through your stuff.
But that's not how we operate in this country.
And it started right from the beginning when they said you shouldn't be able to search Americans' papers and their homes.
You shouldn't be able to do that without going to a separate branch of government and showing probable cause for a warrant.
That is the protection we've always had in this country.
We think it most definitely should apply here.
And the FBI, particularly in light of their history, the context we're in now, particularly we need it now.
So, Congressman, your colleagues that are pushing for this with almost no alterations, no reforms, I got to be honest, what is their contention here?
It is remarkable to me that they say, well, you know, everything's fine.
We give the FBI exactly what they want.
What is their argument?
Yeah, you'll hear that this would slow things down.
And by slowing things down, we may not be able to stop a terrorist threat or whatever.
But I sat in the skip for three and a half hours with the intelligence committee members, with the speaker of the house and judiciary committee members, and people from the intelligence agencies.
We sat down there in the skip and they gave us the presentation.
And I'll be honest, nothing in that presentation, nothing in that discussion for three and a half hours told me that we should move away from what's always happened in this country.
You're going to look at Americans' information.
You got to get a warrant.
You got to have a probable cause reason for doing so.
So we hear that from some people.
There are some people who are in the intelligence community, even in the Trump administration, who say, no, no, you don't want to go with this warrant requirement.
And then there are others who say, yeah, you do.
So, look, I get it.
And there's this tension there.
But it seems to me when there's tension, you err on the side of enforcing the, you know, respecting the Constitution and doing what the Constitution has always done, protect Americans' liberties by getting a warrant.
Well, and then just also, I mean, our base field, I know you do too, Congressman, is that the abuse of FISA is never held accountable.
People don't go to jail.
And we don't even know the full extent of all the abuse.
I mean, regardless of people's opinion of Snowden, he did reveal that there was mass lying and abuses by the national security apparatus and national security state.
So, if you were to make a prediction, which is always a dangerous thing in politics, what do you think we end up with?
Do we end up with some serious reform, something meaningful?
I think there's some, you know, some good reform in the base tax, but not enough to get the vote without the warrant for me.
And I think for a lot of my colleagues, I do feel like every time there's been a debate on this internally and externally, our side is picking up votes, our side meaning the pro-warrant requirement being in the legislation.
So, I just want to get this debate.
I want to win this debate.
I want to win this amendment and send it to the Senate and then, you know, encourage the Senate to keep it in the bill.
I think that's the most important.
There are, you know, some of the reforms that are in there enhance the penalties for people who violate the other part of FISA, like what we had with Strzzok and Page and the Crystal Steel and Dossier and all the stuff they did to President Trump's campaign.
But again, I don't think that's enough without the warrant requirement in the 702 program, as I said now several times, to protect our fundamental liberties like we're supposed to under our Constitution.
Congressman, I want to encourage you to really hold the line on this.
Our audience is really wanting a win, and I think this one is winnable.
We have Democrats that are willing to play ball on this, and just for your colleagues that say, oh, it's going to slow down the process, it's not about the FBI, doesn't care about speed, they care about accountability, and they don't want to have to go in front of a judge to explain themselves.
Too bad.
We have a Fourth Amendment for a reason.
I know you agree.
Congressman, please keep fighting.
Thank you.
We will.
You too.
Keep it up.
Thanks.
Thank you.
I mean, look, I don't have much to say about the OJ thing.
I just, I think he was a scumbag.
I don't feel sorry for him.
He never felt sorry for any of his unrepentant lying.
He obviously killed.
Is it his wife or is his girlfriend?
I can't remember the details.
Just, I don't have a lot to add to that.
I don't.
And I mean, are people going to start writing obituaries?
By the way, OJ intentionally played into a lot of the racial narratives.
He was the best example of post-racial America before the murder.
Married a white woman, was a popular TV personality, film star, Heisman Trophy winner, beloved by almost everyone.
He commits this heinous crime.
He obviously did it.
And builds the whole narrative that he was framed by racist cops.
And then he was, you know, acquitted and it made the whole country go nuts.
And then he had this whole thing, what if I would have done it?
I never liked him.
I never liked his tone.
I never liked his approach.
Never liked his narcissism.
Anything, I mean, obviously it was a murderer.
Okay, let's get to other stories here.
Maybe I would love your thoughts.
Email me freedom at charliekirk.com.
Again, I was alive.
I was two years old during the whole thing.
I've just never been obviously a fan.
I think he was an evil person.
Never Liked His Approach 00:04:00
Okay, let's get to some tape here.
The abortion thing is like the number one story in the country.
But up there is also our Nebraska coverage.
There's a new story with the New York Times that published this morning as follows: which is Nebraska was minding its business until Charlie Kirk came along.
Now, I wanted to ask Mike Davis this, but we are running out of time.
Mike Davis was critical to the Kavanaugh and the Gorsuch hearing.
And as you might remember, in the Kavanaugh and the Gorsuch hearing, we lifted the filibuster in the Senate.
Nebraska might have to do the same so that Nebraska can get to go to winner take all.
And you could tell by the press's reaction, my favorite quote in this New York Times podcast is when the gentleman by the name of, I think his name's Estead, Goes through all the states and plays tape from here, the Charlie Kirk show.
And he says, You know, Charlie's not wrong about Omaha being a deciding electoral vote.
And it's just the power of this audience.
I just want you to know that the action items that we put in front of you are having real and tangible impact, and you need to have that posture.
It has to be an attitude of not sitting on the sidelines and just hoping that things will get better.
Making those calls, showing up to rallies, running for precinct committeemen, running for state party chair, running for state representative, being on the tip of the spear.
This show is about action, action, action, which is always what I wanted this program to be, very similar to Steve Bannon's great show on War Room.
And there's plenty of talk shows out there.
However, this is the whole ballgame.
Republican operatives circulating Tuesday at the Kirk rally seemed smitten with the idea that they might have an easier passage than securing 33 votes needed to beat a pledge Democrat filibuster.
The plan being discussed would suspend the legislature's rules that would allow a minority-led filibuster.
It would take 30 votes to suspend legislative rules.
Doing so means winner-take-all could pass the 25 votes in Pillan signature.
The best argument, the best argument is Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Amy, Coney Barrett.
We achieved Supreme Court justices for a generation because we were willing to suspend a filibuster in the United States Senate.
Pillan has discussed calling senators back to Lincoln to pass property tax relief if they cannot coalesce around a tax package.
They won't.
So they'll definitely come in back for taxes, which is a good thing, which means that they're going to be in Lincoln in a post-session anyway.
And the governor can just use that.
He could just see when that's going to end and then call a special session as an addendum, essentially.
He told a reporter last week that he'd keep lawmakers in session until December, if needed, on taxes.
And Nebraska politics property taxes are a big deal right now.
But do you know what's amazing?
And this is the best takeaway.
I'm going to close this hour with this.
One of the local reporters in Nebraska were asking the attendees at our turning point action event.
They went up to about 50 of them and they said, Hey, would you prefer lower taxes or winner take all?
Lower taxes or winner take all?
Every single Nebraska patriot said, I prefer winner take all over lower tax.
That's patriotism right there.
Not saying that lower tax isn't important, of course it is.
But they'd say, I'd rather have a country.
We can fix taxes later.
I want a country more than more money.
It's a big deal.
That's a side that's ready to win, willing to sacrifice.
Thanks so much for listening.
Everybody, email us 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