When Will the Russiagate Scandal Produce Russiagate Indictments?
More and more evidence is coming out that implicates Adam Schiff, John Brennan, and other members of the Obama cabal in an effort to use calculated lies inside the intelligence agencies to bring down the Trump administration. Sean Davis joins Charlie to lay out when indictments might be coming, and what they would be for. Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli talks about the plague of street takeovers wrecking California cities and how Senate stonewalling is blocking federal efforts to stop them. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com! Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Hey everybody, Charlie Kirk here live from the Bitcoin.com studio.
Sean Davis joins the show to talk about Adam Schiff, the leaking, the intel agency, and also a fairy throws a subway sandwich at a federal agent.
We then have the acting U.S. Attorney in Central California, Bill Asaley, joins us.
And then a chart that is chilling.
We have it at charliekirk.com.
I want you to see it.
Email us as always, freedom at charliekirk.com and get involved with turningpointusa at tpusa.com.
That is tpusa.com.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.
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.
Email us as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Joining us now is Sean Davis from The Federalist.
So, Sean, we got a renewed investigation into Comey leaking in 2017.
We have Tulsi exposing Clapper for cutting corners in 2017 and a DNI report admitting it after the NSA director warned he wasn't comfortable with the intel.
What is the latest here?
And do you think we'll actually see indictments?
Yeah, so I think the most important thing about all these new releases, and there have been a ton within the last couple of weeks.
Some of them was more flesh on the bones of information we already had.
Some of it was really, really new, but they all tell the exact same story.
And that story is that after Donald Trump won the election in 2016, there was an orchestrated, deliberate, widespread conspiracy within the Obama administration that continued for years to basically overthrow Donald Trump, overthrow the presidency, initiate a coup against the government.
And it was all done based on lies by people who knew they were lying, by people who knew they were leaking.
And every single new release that comes out just shows us more facts about why that was the case.
So do you think then an indictment is likely?
I mean, what chatter are we seeing from the Department of Justice?
And if so, what would the crime be?
Yeah, it's hard to say because so much of this stuff is cloaked in grand jury secrecy.
Having watched this stuff, you know, for eight, nine, 10 years now, having watched and covered the whole John Durham investigation, which didn't turn to much, I've gotten, I think, a fairly decent sense of kind of like the rhythms and where I think things are going.
It seems to me that this administration is dead serious about holding people accountable for their criminal conspiracies.
And I see a couple different possible charges.
One would just be a conspiracy against rights under color of law.
Another could be a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. I think there are some people who are still at jeopardy for having made false statements to Congress or federal investigators.
But what's interesting is that if you look at this whole thing as a conspiracy, each new overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy, whether it's lying or leaking or trying to obstruct justice or trying to tamper with witnesses, that tolls the statute of limitations and basically starts it over.
So the conspiracy charge is really what I would expect to see if we do eventually see indictments here.
So let's play some pieces of tape here.
This is Adam Schiff about the Adam Schiff deal here.
Let's go to Cut 393.
These people put our country in great danger.
And Adam Schiff, it was all made up.
It was a hoax.
The Mueller report came out.
They all hated me.
They had 18 Trump haters.
And they said I did nothing wrong.
They couldn't believe, they couldn't find anything after years of investigation.
And one more here.
Let's play cut 438.
A Democrat whistleblower repeatedly was warning the FBI beginning in 2017 that the congenital liar Adam Schiff had authorized leaking classified information to smear President Trump, which, by the way, could be a violation of the Espionage Act.
So is that a violation of the Espionage Act?
And what would the timeline be?
Wouldn't we start to need to see these indictments move in pretty quickly?
Yeah, I'm not sure it would qualify as an Espionage Act.
I think it probably could be a conspiracy to violate classified information rules.
You know, we reported Based on an IG report that came out in 2024, that there was this whistleblower there.
But what we didn't know until there were these documents out was how much detail the FBI had been given about a wide-ranging conspiracy with specific allegations, with specific names and times and places that the FBI had.
And instead of fully investigating and prosecuting that when they were given the information, the FBI instead lawlessly, based on nonsense from Democrat staffers on the same committee, went and spied on Republican staffers in both the House and the Senate for years and then tried to cover it up.
So it's just fascinating to see what the previous FBI investigated and didn't.
As far as timing, I don't expect anything particularly quickly.
This DOJ, I think, is looking at things differently than past DOJs, where they're trying to learn all the documentary facts and evidence, which takes time because they have to go through the mounds of documents that were hidden from them for years.
They have to interview low-level witnesses and learn what they can say about the documentary picture.
And then they'll eventually have to bring in the big dogs and interview them.
So I would expect a multi-month process, maybe even a year-long process, before we really get to the point of indictments.
So, Sean, your commentary here is terrific.
Let's go to, so put 403 up on screen.
The newly declassified top secret emails sent on December 22nd, 2016.
Now, remember, that is during the lame duck period.
This is critical, okay?
So, Donald Trump has won the presidency.
He is in transition.
And this is during the transition at Trump Tower.
The framing and the timing is important here.
The newly declassified top secret emails showed that complying with President Trump's order to create the manufactured 2017 ICA about Russia expose how DNI James Clapper demanded the intelligence community fall in line behind the Russia hoax.
Clapper admits that it was a team sport that required compromise on our normal modalities.
What on earth does that mean?
Well, I think it means that Clapper and Brennan and Comey were breaking the rules.
They were ignoring the process.
They were cutting corners and they were doing it all in furtherance of a narrative which they knew to be false.
And bravo to Tulsi Gabbard for finding this information and getting it out there because we've suspected it for a long time.
We knew that Brennan cooked the books when it came to the ICA.
We knew that he was putting in garbage, so-called evidence, that he was the one who put in the steel dossier because, quote, it rings true, doesn't it?
He's the one who lied to Congress about whether it was in the ICA.
But now we have information about Clapper himself basically trying to hijack the process to get to a particular endpoint, not based on the evidence, but based on what he had been ordered to do and what he wanted to do.
And we now know exactly, by the way, why Clapper and Brennan were calling for NSA director Mike Rogers to be fired in late 2016.
And it's because, based on these emails, we now know that he was, although he eventually signed on to the sham process, that he was highly skeptical of what they were doing and that his analysts didn't actually believe that the evidence that these people were using was sufficient to support the claims they were making.
And Clapper says the timeline is non-negotiable.
So to put this into kind of just, you know, to distill it down to the essence for people that might be, it's very hard to follow, right?
We need like charts and we need like a Glenn Beck chart here, right?
You need like a big whiteboard because it's all over the place.
Basically, it was a, hey, either you're on the train or you're on the tracks.
The president, which was Obama, gave the orders to resurrect Russia as the primary thing that will then use to be a subversion exercise of the incoming President Donald Trump.
Your thoughts, Sean Davis, then I want to go a step deeper.
Yeah, so the timing was critical because all of this had to be set in motion before Trump took office.
So recall that in early December, they pulled a presidential daily briefing that said Russia's cyber activities weren't meant to elect Trump.
And if they had been, they weren't effective at all.
That was pulled, at which point they went into this new ICA process, which later became the foundation of the entire Russia collusion hoax.
We focused a lot on collusion itself, but without the baseless claims in the ICA that Russia wanted Trump to win and that interfered for him to win.
None of the collusion claims would have been possible.
So they had to basically set this timed detonation device in motion before Trump took office so that it could explode once they were gone and then they wouldn't be around to have to deal with the fallout.
Yeah, and so what we're searching for right now is the clip, and you might remember it, where as a context to this, this shows that there was a gang of people that were aware of this.
And in a kind of vulnerable moment, Chuck Schumer went on Rachel Maddow's show in early January of 2017, just weeks before the president took the oath of office the first time.
And Chuck Schumer, in a rare, vulnerable moment, was obviously angry because remember, Donald Trump was getting whispers about this.
This is very important.
So Donald Trump was working in transition and there was chatter.
And so Donald Trump was getting whispers about, hey, like the CIA is doing some goofy stuff, you know, incoming President Trump.
So he starts tweeting about it.
And we can go find that, and everyone said, oh, my goodness, Donald Trump's attacking the Intel community.
How dare he do this?
And then Chuck Schumer did a mask off moment, PlayCut 446.
To take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.
So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this.
What do you think the intelligence community would do if they were moving?
I don't know, but from what I am told, they are very upset with how he has treated them and talked about them.
And we need the intelligence community.
We don't know what's going on.
Look at the Russian hacking.
Without the intelligence community, we wouldn't have discovered it.
Do you think he has an agenda to try to dismantle parts of the intelligence community?
I mean, this form of whether you're a super liberal Democrat or a very conservative Republican, you should be against dismantling the intelligence community.
Woo!
And you got a little nose touch at the end, a little like, ah, you know, that clip right there is that that is a masterclass what was happening.
Let me go through the three parts.
Number one, he does a threat shot across the bow.
You better be careful, President Trump.
Number two, he interjects the Russia thing.
Oh, you know, if it wasn't for the intel community, we wouldn't know about Russia.
And the third component is basically we work for the Intel agencies.
That's basically what Chuck Schumer, who was a representative of the Article I legislative branch, basically like, you better not touch them.
They run this super government.
Sean Davis, 40 seconds.
Well, Schumer was correct.
We saw that during the COVID thing.
We saw it during the Russia collusion hoax.
We saw it during the Ukraine impeachment hoax.
Recall, the Intel community cooked up a complaint against Trump that he wasn't listening to them, and they used that as the basis to try to impeach him.
So yeah, Chuck Schumer in that clip laid out the entire game.
You work for them, they call the shots, and if you at any point think you're in charge, they'll take you out.
And that's what they tried.
If you guys have private student loan debt, this is the best way out.
They are phenomenal supporters of our Student Action Summit, AmericaFest, our campus tours.
Many clients are not able to make the minimum monthly payment on their private student loans when they first contact YReFi.
If you go to YRefi.com, you can read testimonies from other people who have been where you are and how they've successfully escaped.
Do you have a co-borrower?
WhyReFi can get them released from the loan?
You can give mom or dad a break.
Go to yrefi.com.
You can even skip a payment every six months up to 12 times without penalty.
You don't have to ignore that mountain of student loan statements on your kitchen table anymore.
Call 888YReFi34 or go to yrefi.com.
That is yrefy.com.
May not be available in all 50 states.
So go to yrefi.com.
If you have distressed or defaulted private student loans, they can get you out of debt.
So if you know anybody in your life that might have student loan problems, private student loan problems, check it out right now at yrefi.com.
That is yrefy.com.
So apparently there was the subway chucker.
We could put the bureau up here.
So apparently someone threw a subway sandwich at a federal agent.
And we said, okay, you know, find some typical lib that probably works for, you know, some trans organization.
Nope.
Turns out, who was he, Sean Davis?
Who was the sub-chucker?
Yeah, the sassy sub-chucker, as I believe he is now known, is a 37-year-old international affairs specialist, a non-attorney who was hired in 2022 by the Biden administration at the Department of Justice.
Ah, there you go.
That's what we care about.
Which is remarkable.
So wait, so tell us more.
He is also an openly gay guy.
And so he works for the Department of Justice.
So let me just get this straight.
So someone who works for the DOJ is throwing objects and breaking federal laws against federal law enforcement.
Apparently, and there's some more hilarious connections here.
It's bad enough that he works for DOJ and was assaulting federal officers.
But according to court records that we looked at, his attorney is something of a famous criminal defense attorney.
Her name is Sabrina Schroff, who is known for having represented Billy McFarland, who was the Firefest huckster, who also got in trouble for throwing out some filthy sandwiches to concertgoers at Firefest.
Ah, that's depressing.
So look, the left has gotten used to the idea that they can get paid a lifelong salary to be a political operative on a tax paradigm and never face any consequences.
And so look, of course, this guy should go to jail.
He should be put behind bars.
But Sean, do you think that this is a window into who is actually in the deep state of our government?
Like that guy who like forcibly throws the subway and he runs away like a little fairy.
Look at that.
Oh, wow.
I run in my pink little shirt and my, yeah, I love those guys just hunting them down.
So tell us how many of these kind of anti-American fairies are in our government.
I think the worst thing I can say about that guy is he throws like Barack Obama.
That's right.
But the federal government is full of people like this.
And it's actually why they all freaked out when Trump went and shut down USAID, this gajillion dollar, massive industrial complex, which seemed to only be used to fund the left.
This is what they do, whether it's through Sue and Settle, whether it's through NGOs that survive entirely on taxpayer money, or whether it's through the permanent bureaucracy with people like this.
This is how they control the government.
And this is how they're able to get paid to do their activism under the color of just normal federal service.
And it has to stop.
And quite honestly, it's no wonder that conservatives and Republicans have such a hard time implementing their agenda because at every single step on every floor of every building, they have people like this subverting the agenda while pretending to just be nonpartisan, objective civil servants.
And it's got to stop.
Look, I mean, Doge should not go nearly far enough.
And we have a budget fight coming up this fall.
The Senate and the House, they're going to probably try to do some omnibus, and we need to just draw the line, not allow it.
Why do these people still work for the U.S. taxpayer?
We need mass layoffs, mass firings.
And by the way, start with guys like this.
I mean, what good is he bringing to the Department of Justice?
He's throwing subway sandwiches, being hunted by federal officers.
Why do we need gay 37-year-olds working in international affairs at the Department of Justice?
How is that making us safer?
It's not about like, okay, the gay thing or whatever.
It's just the point is that it's obvious that he has an agenda.
He's like open about it.
He's not there.
It's just like a sense of entitlement.
And he's chucking objects at federal law enforcement as he himself is a federal employee.
Final thoughts, Sean Davis.
Yeah, well, a big problem here is you've got a bazillion different employees.
It's hard to know who all the bad ones are.
You've got to have good people in place at the political level to fix this.
And the Senate so far has only confirmed 100-something of Trump's political nominees.
There's still hundreds waiting to be confirmed, waiting to take their jobs in these agencies.
And you just can't expect one person at the top to go in and be able to know where all the bodies are buried and who all the extra weight is to get rid of it.
You've got to have your full team in place.
And for reasons that I just don't understand, the Senate's being allowed to just obstruct and dicker around and prevent Trump from getting his full team in place, which leads to this type of nonsense.
That is a window.
I hope the takeaway is this, as we say goodbye to Sean Davis and the Federalist.
I want you to extrapolate a standing army of 600,000 fairies that throw subway sandwiches.
That's who staffs your government.
We should fire them all.
Thank you, Sean Davis.
I'm excited to share something that's especially close to my heart, the people of Israel.
The Bible teaches Us that in a world of broken promises, one covenant remains unshakable: God's eternal promise, his unwavering commitment to Israel, his beloved people.
And now, more than ever, God is calling Christians everywhere to support Israel, to be a living testimony that his promises endure forever.
I've chosen to partner with the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews as one way to align myself with God's eternal plan.
For over 40 years, this wonderful ministry has faithfully provided nutritious food, care, and life-saving aid to Israel's most vulnerable, the poor and the elderly, many of whom are Holocaust survivors.
And when crises strike, like rocket attacks or urgent humanitarian needs, IFCJ is already on the ground responding with compassion and support.
Join me in standing for Israel and declaring God's faithfulness to all generations.
To learn more and to find out how you can help, visit ifcj.org.
That is ifcj.org, IFCJ.org.
There are street takeovers happening in Los Angeles.
We have crime all across California.
We're trying to get our U.S. attorneys in, but the Senate needs to figure themselves out.
But joining us now is the acting U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California with a lot to discuss, Bill Isaley.
Bill, great to see you.
Thank you for joining the program.
What are some of the fights that you guys are engaged in in California to bring down crime?
Please walk us through it.
Oh, Charlie, thanks for having me on.
And since I've gotten here in April, we have taken on a huge initiative here.
I would say the first thing I've made a priority is going after this homelessness fraud that happens here in the state of California.
We've had $24 billion spent over five years, and it's only gotten worse.
And there's a lot of people who've seen and been enriched off that.
So we have open investigations into that.
And I think you'll be seeing some of the fruits of that here very soon.
We are going after sanctuary cities and jurisdictions.
We have Operation Guardian Angel, where we are getting warrants for criminals in state custody, and they are required to hand them over to us, which they are not required to comply with the detainer, but they have to comply with a warrant.
We're going after street gangs.
Just yesterday at 5 a.m., we did a takedown of the Hoover street gang in LA in the Figueroa Corridor, which is one of the worst sex trafficking corridors probably in the world.
It's horrendous what happens there.
You have young women and children as young as 14 years old being pimped out by these gang members.
And yesterday we indicted and took out 11 of the leaders of this organization who are pimping out these girls and these children.
And we're very proud of doing that.
That's the work that the Department of Justice is doing to clean up our communities where the prior administration was busy weaponizing the department.
We're out there making the American people safer.
That's what we're doing here.
Yeah, and so how is that being received by mayors, local leaders?
Are some Democrats fighting this crackdown on crime?
No, actually, behind the scenes, they're begging us to take these cases.
They understand that they don't have the ability to go after these thugs in the state system.
California has watered down their criminal justice system.
They have no real punishment for their felonies.
They're closing prisons left and right.
So they don't have the ability to incarcerate people and to have meaningful consequences.
So they beg us to take these cases.
Where they are fighting us, Charlie, is on the immigration enforcement.
We are having our Border Patrol and ICE.
They're going out every day arresting hundreds of illegal immigrants, criminal legal immigrants, and they are fighting us tooth and nail on that.
They're sending out these thugs to resist our agents, and we are charging people.
I filed over 53 cases for assaults and interference with our agents.
And that's where they're focusing their opposition.
Yeah, and so what is your status in front of the U.S. Senate?
I mean, are you confirmed?
You're acting.
Tell us.
My status in front of the U.S. Senate is I have no status.
I've never been nominated to the Senate because the senators here, Alex Badilla and Adam Schiff, have refused to even, my understanding, is meet with the White House or have discussions with the White House.
So I was appointed by the Attorney General as the interim U.S. Attorney, which gave me the ability to serve in that position for 120 days.
At the end of that 120 days, the judges had the opportunity to make me the permanent U.S. attorney.
They declined to do so here, which is unsurprising.
But they did not name a replacement, Like, unlike what they tried to do at Lena Haba there to impose their own prosecutor, they just did nothing in this district.
So, because of that, I am now what's called the acting U.S. attorney.
I am a DOJ employee, and I'm the top DOJ employee in the office.
So, that effectively makes me the acting U.S. attorney here.
And that's our workaround right now because my understanding is there is no appetite in the United States Senate to modify the blue slip process, which allows Democrat senators like Adam Schiff and Alex Badilla to have a veto over the president's appointees.
It makes zero sense to have this process.
We spoke out against the blue slip, and Chuck Grassley is the kind of one overseeing it.
Just so we are clear, you're doing a great job, but you will not be able to be a permanent U.S. attorney as long as a Democrat vetoes you.
So, basically, we win an election, and then we don't get to have our U.S. attorneys, even though we voted for secure border going on cartels, because you have a couple U.S. senators of a non-constitutional, purely procedural gentleman's club, where they say, oh, you know, we're going to be able to kind of get in the way of this.
It is a ridiculous system.
It will not allow us to get President Trump's people in Oregon, in Washington, in California, in Arizona, in Georgia, in New Jersey, in New York, in Massachusetts, and in Maine.
Well, Maine, we have Susan Collins, but still Angus King get in the way of it.
Those blues support supporters, they need to get a pink slip, basically, we said.
So, so walk us through what are the other issues that we are fighting here that you are fighting firsthand in California, and how present is the cartel activity?
And, real quick on the blue slip thing, Charlie, it's not just U.S. attorneys.
You're talking about judges.
When you look at all the judges who are issuing TROs or injunctions, we had a judge issue a TRO against our border patrol agents here because they don't want them to do the immigration enforcement.
All those judges are basically they have to go through the senators.
The senators, through this blue slip tradition, it's really a tradition, it's not a law or anything.
It allows them to be the kings of their states.
So, these Democrat senators walk around like they're kingmakers.
They pick the U.S. attorneys, they pick the judges, they run the place.
And what I've seen does not happen in the reverse, Charlie.
And in Republican states, Republicans don't exercise their power that way.
You know what they say?
Barack Obama won the election.
He deserves to have his people.
And so they allow the president to pick his people in Republican states.
But in blue states, Democrats refuse to do that.
So it's a bigger issue than just U.S. attorneys.
On cartels, there is no shortage of crime here.
Even though we are not a border district, we're not technically on the border.
We are still considered a border district in the eyes of the DOJ.
We do some of the largest, most impactful drug interdiction cases.
We have a lot of illegal immigrants in this district, millions of illegal immigrants in this district.
We file what's called 1326 cases.
This is when someone is deported and they re-enter.
It is now a federal felony.
Under the Biden administration, they stopped filing those cases.
We have filed over 900 just this year.
So that's just a little flavor of the work that we're doing here.
Almost every day, we're indicting some drug trafficker, gang member, someone with guns and drugs, some child molester or trafficker.
I mean, there's no shortage of crime.
It just doesn't get reported the way the other stuff does in the media.
Okay, let's now go to cut 435.
This is Karen Bass fighting Trump's raids.
I'm going to play this and say, isn't it time to start indicting these mayors?
I mean, they're allowed to just fight against President Trump's immigration policy play cut 435.
We're all here today in solidarity to say that we will continue to resist.
We are not going to accept this behavior from this administration and that Los Angeles stands united.
So, again, that's not, she's like standing with the immigrant community fighting against.
I mean, is it legal for a mayor to defy federal law enforcement?
It is not legal for a mayor to defy federal law enforcement.
It is illegal for her to interfere with federal law enforcement.
What they do is they try to kind of walk this line where they say, we're not going to cooperate.
We're not going to help you.
And we're just going to make it very clear that we don't like you.
The thing that would cross them into the criminal Territory is if they took actions to actually impede or interfere with our ability to do our job.
And Charlie, if I could say, first of all, I'm not going to talk about any investigations that we may or may not have, but this to me is a problem that is easily remedied by Congress.
Sanctuary cities have been challenged in the courts.
And what the courts have said is that states do not have to use their state resources to help the federal government.
Now, what Congress could very easily do is say, fine, you're not going to get a penny from the federal government unless you get rid of your sanctuary policies.
This is how we regulate highway speeds.
That's why we have speed limits in every state.
This is why we have a drinking age of 21 in every state.
That is how the federal government compels states to do things.
Simple levels of money.
That's right.
Yes.
That's right.
We are behind you.
We're going to do everything we can to get you confirmed under the current system.
You're not going to get confirmed unless the Senate fixes this ridiculous blue slip thing.
Bill Isali, thank you so much for your time, and we really appreciate it.
Thank you, Charlie.
America's small businesses rely on TikTok to succeed.
We go viral on TikTok, reaching billions of young people every year.
It's one of the reasons why we were able to win the youth vote.
Well, TikTok helps businesses attract more customers and drive growth from small batch sellers to fast-growing brands.
74% of businesses on TikTok say it's helped them scale by hiring more employees, boosting sales, and expanding to new locations.
Like Arizona Taco King, who grew from a mom-and-pop taco cart to two thriving restaurants in just a year.
Or Coco Asante, who upgraded to a larger facility and brought on more staff, letting their handcrafted chocolates reach more customers.
Or Dan O. Seasoning, who went from a one-man show to a team of 45, now supporting dozens of hardworking families.
With TikTok, small businesses are thriving, finding their customers, and expanding.
Learn more about TikTok's contribution to the U.S. economy at TikTokEconomicImpact.com, TikTokEconomicImpact.com.
I don't love charts.
I'm not a big chart guy because they could be very deceiving.
But every so often you find a chart that is a perfect depiction of what not just is reality, but something that you've been trying to put into words.
President Donald Trump, of course, loved a chart.
A chart saved his life.
Thanks to Ron Johnson.
He turned his head at the right moment and vomited that bullet went by.
Of course, it was the illegal border crossings chart.
This chart is one I want to draw your attention to.
This is not a criticism, of course, of any generation.
This is a statement of reality.
This is the estimated percentage of 30-year-olds who are both married and are homeowners.
In 1950, the World War II generation, 50% of 30-year-olds were married and they owned a home.
In the 1980s, it only went down by about 5%.
45% of 30-year-olds in 1980 were married and owned homes.
Around the turn of the millennium, it was okay, but obviously falling.
It was like 35%.
When Obama was president, it was 27%.
It is now about 8%.
So we went from a country where half of our nation's young people were married and owned homes right in 1950.
And now it's about 8%.
Interesting to start to see the chart drop at 1990.
We had the invasion of Iraq and the signing, of course, of the 1990 Immigration Act, where we went from 0.5 million green cards to 1.2 million.
A coincidence?
Of course not.
This right here is a breakdown of the social compact.
This is what I've been talking about.
I talked about with Tucker Carlson.
I talked about on CNBC.
This is leading the populist nationalist revolution across the West.
We need urgency to restore it.
I believe President Trump can and will.
Mass deportations, stop the H-1B scam, dramatically reduce legal immigration, end chain migration and the visa lottery, build 10 million homes immediately for Americans and crush the college cartel and make it easier for you to be a plumber, electrician, a welder, a pipe fitter.
Do you want to save a generation and stop Mom Donnie and Maggioni?
Study that chart.
Know that chart.
It's harder than ever for young people to be able to find a mate that is not either incredibly, let's just Say unappealing or lesbian or gay.
It's just the whole generation, the whole dating pool is all disordered and messed up.
Trust me, I hear about that all the time.
That's a very good topic that we should talk about, Morris.
Why are young people not getting married?
Why are fertility rates collapsing the way they are?
But you have a choice, and we talked about this choice yesterday.
And I'll keep that chart up just for a second.
I just want to repeat it.
In 1980, it only went down by five points.
In 1980, where a lot of people in this audience were about 30 years old, that would be a baby boomer.
45% of you were able to get married and have homes and were married and had homes.
And now it's about 8%.
This invites radical politics.
I'm working on a longer form thesis as to why homeownership is so important.
An argument that someone made to me recently of someone I really respect, who was a private discussion, he said, but renting is the new way.
Renting is better.
Renting is better because the argument he made is, well, when's the last time you used your dining room in your house?
There's so much inefficiencies in owning.
There's so much dead space.
Wouldn't it be better to have a bed come out of the ceiling and your toilet come out of the wall and you could invest that extra money in a 401k or a stock portfolio?
While that all sounds good, is efficiency really the thing that we're aiming towards?
I think there's something uniquely American as saying this is my land, this is my property.
And those of us that are homeowners, you know that something happened to you as soon as you bought a home.
You know something changed.
Now, of course, people should have a choice.
If you want to rent, go ahead.
But we actually don't have the choice.
That's the point.
Is that young people are being forced into a mandatory rental economy?
Yeah, let's play cut 440.
They tell us to stop eating out and rent $2,000 a month.
Oh, save for retirement, and yet you can barely save for next week.
Go buy a house.
Every house is half a million dollars, brother.
I'm not asking for a handout, man.
We're asking for a freaking fair shot at life.
Our parents did not work harder than we work right now.
They were simply just given a better chance.
Their wages covered their lives, their bills, their hobbies, their passions.
Our wages barely cover our freaking bills for the month, dude.
No amount of budgeting can ever fix a system designed to keep us down.
We're doing the best that we can, and yet it feels like the outcome has already been decided.
