All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Jan. 29, 2026 - The Charlie Kirk Show
33:45
The FBI Raids Fulton County ft. FBI Director Kash Patel
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Fighting Evil and Proclaiming Truth 00:12:11
My name is Charlie Kirk.
I run the largest pro American student organization in the country fighting for the future of our republic.
My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth.
If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're going to end up miserable.
But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful.
College is a scam, everybody.
You got to stop sending your kids to college.
You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible.
Go start a turning point USA college chapter.
Go start a turning point USA high school chapter.
Go find out how your church can get involved.
Sign up and become an activist.
I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade.
Most important decision I ever made in my life, and I encourage you to do the same.
Here I am.
Lord, use me.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
The Charlie Kirk Show is proudly sponsored by Preserve Gold, the leading gold and silver experts, and the only precious metals company I recommend to my family, friends, and viewers.
Welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show, January 29, 2026, here at the Bitcoin.com studios.
To our Real America's Voice audience, we are going to cut away just briefly from the president's cabinet meeting, and we will get back to that in just a sec, but we want to talk with FBI Director Kash Patel, who is making time to join us here.
Welcome to the show, Mr. Director.
It's always great to be with you guys.
Thanks for having me on.
Well, thank you for making the time for us.
We get right into it.
Yesterday was a big day.
There was an FBI warrant that was executed at the main election warehouse operations center in Fulton County, Georgia, relating to the 2020 election.
What can you tell us, sir?
Yeah, thanks so much for having me.
As you know, I really don't do these types of appearances, but I wanted to address it because it's such of great public importance.
And let me just set the backdrop.
President Trump, under his leadership and under the Department of Justice and the Attorney General, have made it a priority to reduce crime and safeguard American citizenry.
That's why this FBI, along with our partners, were able to produce a reduction in the murder rate by 20 percentage points from coast to coast.
That is an all time record for the modern era.
This FBI has arrested 67,000 people in the last year.
That's a 210% increase from the year before, and we're seizing fentanyl at record levels, enough to kill 150 million Americans, 35% more espionage arrests.
The reason I go through these statistics is because within these statistics are lives saved and communities safeguarded by President Trump's brilliant leadership and our great partners at the Department of Justice under Attorney General Pambondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch.
And the reason I bring these things out, and we captured six top 10 of the FBI's most wanted in one year, including Ryan Wedding and another individual in Mexico just last week where I was.
And the reason I go through this is because we, thanks to President Trump, are a law enforcement police force for the United States government.
And we take these cases seriously.
And we go into court and we present the facts and we work the legal process.
And that's what you saw yesterday.
It was a DOJ and FBI effort to present after an extended period of time of investigations, because as you know, any of these cases, the ones I just talked about in general or this one specifically, take time to develop.
We have to go out and conduct investigations, interrogations, interviews, collect information, data, and synthesize them with our brilliant partners at DOJ to present.
And that's what I want to highlight.
The FBI and DOJ presented this information to a judge in Georgia, where they determined the judge that there was a finding for probable cause, following the constitutional precepts that are necessary to safeguard an investigation, just like any other we do.
And what we did yesterday was we presented our facts and the findings of the investigation, and the judge determined there was probable cause.
And then you saw the results.
We went and executed the search warrants and collected the information pursuant to that search warrant to continue our investigation.
And that's what I want to harp on to your audience and the American people.
These things take time.
And it's not one of those matters where I'm saying, trust us.
I'm saying, look at the last year under President Trump's leadership, what this DOJ and FBI has done.
Record levels of safety across America.
And we are going after the worst of the worst, including child predators.
And our arrests on child predators and disrupting child predator networks are up anywhere from 50 to 500 percent, depending on the category.
So we're taking the same mindset to every kind of investigation.
And that's what you saw unfold yesterday the leadership of the DOJ and FBI on the ground going and presenting facts to a neutral and detached arbiter of justice, the judge, who authorized a search warrant, and we collected more information.
So, Director Patel, there were multiple truckloads of materials, including boxes of ballots, physical ballots from 2020, ballot images, 2020 voter rolls, tabulators potentially, tapes.
What was the predicate for this?
What can you tell us?
You say it takes a lot of time to build this case.
Is there any other granularity or details you can share with the audience?
What we do is to safeguard the integrity of this investigation or any investigation.
Is apply for the search warrant.
And then what we do is we speak through our public papers in court.
And what we will do next over the course of time with the Department of Justice is move to have the search warrant unsealed so that the American public can read whatever material that we put in there.
Right now, that of course remains under seal, so I can't discuss it.
And also, I want to highlight that we don't want to jeopardize any piece of this investigation by releasing information, not just prematurely, but we as officers of the court.
Our U.S. attorneys and our FBI agents are responsible and committed under the law to abide by the parameters of the search warrant.
And that's the rubric we're operating under right now.
So I think you'll see, again, given the last year that we've had under President Trump, that we divulge information.
We produce information to Congress and the public at record levels.
And we're going to continue to do that, but we're not going to jeopardize the investigation.
Yesterday was a big public facing step.
And you're right, you saw trucks, you saw material being removed.
And what the FBI will do is now analyze that information, and we will take the next investigatory steps with our Department of Justice partners.
The FBI and DOJ will run this investigation as we have every other investigation that has resulted in these record achievements for the president and under the president's leadership for America.
What can you tell us about the timeline that we obviously understand?
I hear you're harping on it.
These things take time to develop.
Is there any expectations about when we might get the next update on this case?
Because this has generated a ton of interest and intrigue, as I'm sure you're aware.
What's next?
What can we expect next?
And that's just it.
I can't predict where an investigation is going to go.
What we do best with our lawyers and our agents is.
Gather the evidence, which we just did, which takes a monumental step to do so.
And then we have to look at it and see okay, now what do we got?
Do we need more search warrants?
Do we need to talk to more witnesses?
Do we need to examine any other locations or pieces of evidence?
And so that's going to unfold as we go through the evidence.
But as you highlighted, it takes a minute to go through truckloads of evidence.
And that's the next step.
Once we go through that and we discuss the matter with Department of Justice and FBI personnel, then we'll make any next public facing steps for permitted without.
Jeopardizing the investigation.
So I just wanted to address that to say this has been a well thought out, methodical, predicated investigation.
And that's what we do here.
And that's what the president wants us to do follow the facts and the law.
And that's all we're doing here at DOJ and FBI.
And we're just thankful that we have a great attorney general and deputy attorney general and great FBI personnel who dedicated themselves, not just to this mission, but to the entire mission of keeping America safe.
And that's what we're going to do.
We're not going to change it for any.
Any type of investigation.
The results speak for themselves, and the results, after one year, will hopefully give the American public confidence that we will handle this investigation no differently than any other.
Director Patel, the Fulton County chairman has been complaining that he says the ballots are no longer safe and secure because the FBI has them, that they've lost.
What do you have to say to that?
The FBI is the world's premier law enforcement agency.
We collect evidence from around the country and all over the world.
We have facilities that store evidence.
We have facilities that maintain the chain of custody.
And for anybody to hint that this FBI or this Department of Justice is mishandling evidence is just flat out political buffoonery.
We will maintain the chain of custody.
We will secure it like we always do.
And we will make sure that we can use it to further any investigation.
And most importantly, we will make sure that it is maintained under the rigors of the law so that we can use it.
In any future court proceedings that may rise out of any investigation.
And that's kind of a last point there.
Is there any concern?
I was checking the statute of limitations on a lot of election fraud claims is five years, which we're basically right up against.
Is there any concern about timeline on that, or have they thought of ways they could extend that?
Has that entered the calculus at all?
You know, the calculus in terms of the statute is always for our brilliant attorneys at DOJ who we work in conjunction with, and we always abide by.
The statute of limitations and any constitutional parameters that we have, but we were able to effectuate the search warrant in a timely fashion legally and had a judge make a finding of probable cause.
So we did just that.
And that's where we are today.
And look, especially for you and your audience who have been such great supporters of law enforcement, I wish I could tell you more.
And hopefully the audience takes away the fact that after one year under President Trump, it's no longer trust us.
It's look at what we've done, and we're going to continue to do the same thing here.
Well, Director Patel, I know you got a dash, and we just thank you for your time.
But you guys have accomplished a lot with that top 10 most wanted list.
You're making massive progress there.
Murders are down, crime is down.
So we appreciate you making the time.
We will wait on bated breath for updates on this case, as I know you know, Director Patel, just how much this means to the base and President Trump supporters.
Thank you again for your time.
Thank you so much.
And thanks to you and Erica and the entire Turning Point community.
We really appreciate your support of law enforcement.
Thank you.
God bless you.
Hey, guys, if you've been a faithful Kirk podcast listener for any amount of time, then you've probably already heard about Strong Cell.
It was Charlie's favorite supplement.
If you want to deal with your brain fog, fatigue, lack of energy, or constant illness, then you have to try Strong Cell.
People always asked Charlie how he was able to keep his mind so sharp and his energy up.
And Strong Cell was his go to every day.
Day.
I traveled the country with Charlie, watching people ask him time and again if he really believed in Strong Cell.
And I loved watching him tell him, yes, he loved it and he used it.
And he made us all believers too here at the Charlie Kirk Show.
Strong Cell uses a proprietary delivery of NADH to make sure it goes straight to your cells to help your mitochondria.
And since there are cells in every area of your body, then healthier cells equals a healthier you.
And now you can try Strong Cell completely risk free with their 90 day money back guarantee.
That's right, completely risk free to try.
That's strongcel.com forward slash Charlie.
And don't forget to use special discount code Charlie at checkout to get a special 20% off just for Kirk listeners.
Strongcel.com forward slash Charlie.
Check it out right now.
Immigration, Voting, and Funding Bills 00:14:53
We are joined by Senator Mark Wayne Mullen from the great state of Oklahoma.
Senator, we have much to get to here.
Oh, I like the hat, Senator.
There you go.
You're repping it.
My hair's all messed up.
No, I love it.
As a guy who comes from rancher stock in Nevada, I can appreciate it.
So we've got, I'm looking at ABC right now, one of the monitors here, and it's saying that the Senate funding bill has run into a roadblock here.
We've got Schumer making demands about DHS and ICE.
What can you tell us?
Are we going to have a shutdown on Saturday?
No.
So we knew this bill was going to fail, which is why you have seven Republicans that voted against it.
We had probably had everybody on the bill but Rand Paul if we knew it was going to pass.
But since it takes 60 votes, it wasn't going to get there.
But we had to take this vote to be able to get on the bill to amend it.
So this bill basically has to fail before we can amend it.
We're going to amend it to five appropriation bills and then CR.
The DHS, which is a dumb move, Andrew, for the Democrats.
I can explain that if you want to get into it, what this bill actually does.
So, well, I'll finish the process first.
We're going to amend it to put five bills or to five appropriation bills.
We'll do a CR.
We're working on the timeframe on that.
Democrats have asked for two weeks.
We've asked for a six week CR.
We'll probably negotiate, end up somewhere around four weeks.
Who knows?
And then we're going to CR it.
But what does a CR do?
Do it's this is what's ridiculous is the CR actually spends more money when DHS we were actually cutting, um, DHS by a pretty significant amount because the one big beautiful bill put so much money in DHS's account that they're able to move stuff around.
So, even if this goes into a shutdown, even if they even if they did shut down and we don't get a CR on DHS, it does nothing to keep IH, uh, ICE or DHS funded.
It does nothing because they have enough money in their accounts from the one big beautiful bill.
To actually still pay the officers for almost four years.
But what it does shut down is TSA agents, FEMA, it shuts down the Secret Service, and it shuts down the Coast Guard.
So, the thing that they've literally planted their flag on does nothing.
And even Patty Murray, who's part of Democrat leadership, came out and said the same thing.
Wow.
So, this is completely performative from the Democrats.
They're making ice their big boogeyman.
And so, their line in the sand isn't going to touch ice, it's not going to touch DHS.
It's going to harm Coast Guard, FEMA, and TSA.
Oh, that's really good.
And Secret Service.
And by the way, because the air traffic controllers allow.
And control international flights, it'll affect them a little bit.
Not like it did during the 43 day shutdown, but it will affect air traffic controllers again.
It's just so dysfunctional.
I mean, you know, this whole ICE DHS fight, by the way, I want to give a shout out to Borders Art Tom Homan.
I thought he did a masterful job in his press conference this morning.
I thought he set the right tone.
He drew a line in the sand.
He said, everybody's on the table if you're in this country illegally.
So he's not budging on that.
But I think from a messaging standpoint, he seems to have succeeded in getting local cooperation from state and local police departments.
It's, you know, Jacob Fry, I think, is doing a little bit of cute.
Cutesy dance with the language that he's not, they're not enforcing immigration law.
Well, nobody's asking you to do that.
Well, we would love for you to do that, but that's not what we're talking about.
When we have ICE agents and Border Patrol, DHS that are under siege, that are getting attacked, we expect you to protect them because they're American citizens.
That's your job.
And secondly, we want you to hand over criminals at your jails.
So it sounds like.
Borders are.
Homan has succeeded in getting concessions on those fronts.
We'll see how it plays out.
He even said, I'm not, I'm no fool.
I'm going to stay here.
We're not, we're not, yeah, but go ahead.
You can react to that.
Well, Mayor Fry came out and said that he's not there to enforce immigration laws, federal immigration laws, which is absurd because if you start thinking about that, he doesn't get to pick and choose that.
It's a federal law.
Now, the city can have their own jurisdiction on what they're going to force on speed limits and what they consider petty crimes.
How they want to handle homeless, how they want to handle robberies, how they can handle all that.
But a federal law, they don't get the option to pick and choose.
And so he actually has come out publicly and said that.
Now, Tom did a phenomenal job.
I mean, for a guy that I think sometimes he gets underestimated because of the way he comes across, the guy was extremely articulate.
He did, as you said, Andrew, set the exact tone that he needed to set.
He wasn't bringing up the temperature, but he wasn't backing up a step, but he was.
He was laying out the groundwork of what he's going to perceive moving forward, and he's expecting cooperation.
You're absolutely correct.
I thought he did a really, really good job.
Well, and here's the point nobody wants people dying, although we've seen now clips of this Alex Pretty guy who's kicking taillights, spitting on ICE officers, and saying, Come on, MFers, assault me.
I mean, complete antagonist here.
A real peach.
Obviously, we don't want anybody to die.
But you know, they're bringing down the temperature.
I support that.
I suppose as long as we don't budge off the line that all of these people are subject to deportation.
But this is the point.
Go ahead.
Yes.
Well, I was going to say, Andrew, they're blaming DHS on this.
DHS has been in cities all across the United States working, and this is only happening in Minneapolis.
Why is it happening in Minneapolis?
It's because of Minneapolis leadership.
It's not DHS.
DHS hasn't changed their tactics.
If they want to do something about law enforcement, they need to start cooperating.
With DHS.
Listen, we did it right here in Washington, D.C., where over 90% of the population in Washington, D.C. voted Democrat.
You couldn't get a more liberal city than Washington, D.C.
And even the mayor of Washington, D.C. came in and thanked President Trump for putting ice on the street and putting the National Guard on the streets.
And then, when you start seeing what happened in Memphis, which seems in New Orleans, which you've seen in St. Louis, which even in Chicago, you didn't see this kind of rhetoric take place.
This is happening because Minneapolis leadership is refusing to cooperate and actually working against DHS.
If they were doing their job, listen, ICE wouldn't even be on the streets.
ICE would simply be showing up at the detention centers, which Tom was talking about, and picking up the criminals that they were getting off their streets.
So, if they want ICE off the street, then say you're going to enforce federal law.
If you're saying you're not going to enforce federal law, Then the federal government is obligated to do so.
Yeah, and I think they're hiding behind some pretty well established sanctuary city precedent here and what they consider established legal precedent.
I completely agree.
I think sanctuary cities are an abomination.
They need to be outlawed.
But the fine printing.
I don't think they're legal to begin with.
I completely agree.
But what they distinguish between not impeding versus cooperating, not enforcing.
So now Tom Homan was saying that they're going to get.
The concession is that they're going to hand over illegals that have a detention request for them.
So they're going to out of some of their jails.
So we'll see if that happens.
It's as simple as that, though, because everybody gives Obama all this credit for all these deportations.
Well, truth be told, about 80% of the deportations under Obama were just handovers.
They just handed them off at the jails because we didn't have this militarized, aggressive sanctuary city culture during the Obama years.
And plus, he's a Democrat, so they cooperated.
I want to get really quickly because Blake and I were talking about this in the break, and that was the SAVE Act.
We had a big movement here where Senator Thune, Leader Thune, is now saying he's in favor of it.
You are the co author, I believe, of this bill.
But can this get us over the finish line?
I mean, I know it's going back to the House, it's getting edited, it's getting amended.
Can we get enough?
No BS.
Is there any hope for this?
Would the Senate ever abolish the filibuster to pass it?
Yeah.
So first of all, Blake, you should try a cowboy hat.
It wouldn't hurt.
Sorry, man.
I give you a hard time.
Second of all, Boone was always for it.
He just wasn't out in front.
You got to remember, he's got to walk a delegate line because he has to represent everybody in our conference.
And so he never wants to get out in front of our conference.
It took a little bit of back and forth for over.
You'd think the majority of our conference would sponsor this just like this.
It didn't happen that way.
We had to go through some of the process to get there.
The only way I think this gets.
Over the finish line, Andrew, is if it would probably have to do in the fact that we've got rid of the filibuster in some form.
I don't think we could ever get 60 votes on this.
Now, you could see where the political wind may change, but the Democrats are, you know, they don't want anybody to have to have any ID to vote.
They want anybody to show up and not even have to prove that they're even live in the district or in the precinct or they're a U.S. citizen.
They just want everybody to be able to.
Yeah, I totally agree.
What would what so if we're gonna because I've seen it floated that they're you know the nuking the filibuster for appropriations or funding bills.
Is there something you could do in a limited window that maybe Thune would find palatable?
You know, maybe it's about immigration or voting integrity.
Is there some category that you could exempt?
I think it's more likely to be on funding.
Remember, we did this with judges, uh, so this isn't new.
We in 2017, um, they we with Mitch McConnell, we did it for the judges.
We also changed the rules in 1975.
We changed them in 1917, and we changed them in 1807.
So the Senate can change it.
If we were to do it, it would have to go through funding because there would be funding that would have to be made available for it because we'd have to work with the states to get the proper ID for them to do it, or it'd have to be a real ID.
My argument is I don't think it would cost us $1 because the real ID is already considered a federal ID.
So as long as you had a photo ID that was a real ID, that was a driver's license, or an ID that you get, I think it works, but more than likely, this would be part of a funding bill, which could take place possibly when we start doing FY27, which is because FY26 is almost over.
We've got all the appropriation bills.
I mean, the House has already done all 12 of them, which is amazing for them to do.
We're about ready to do 11, have only one holdover.
FY27, if we were to find ourselves leading into a shutdown before the primary, this could absolutely be part of the discussion.
It would be to drop the filibuster.
On appropriations, and then the SAVE Act could be part of it.
So, just to be clear, would that be in time for the midterms?
Depends on how it was written.
Because technically, yes, because the FY26 funding runs out September 30th.
So, we start the new physical year October 1st.
So, if we did it in September 30th, that is more than enough time for the November election to have availability to do it.
Now, there's a lot of what ifs in this, Andrew, because It would have to be that the Democrats are moving us to a shutdown.
So, if they were moving us to a shutdown to avoid a shutdown, timing is the most important thing we could ever have because moving to a shutdown would be devastating for us in the midterm.
So, there would be a lot of people that want to avoid that.
So, that's when the filibuster narrowly changing for appropriations only could work.
Hi, folks.
Andrew Colvett here.
I'd like to tell you about my friends over at Y Refi.
You've probably been hearing me talk about Y Refi for some time now.
We are all in with these guys.
If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call.
Maybe you're behind on your payments, maybe you're even in default.
You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore.
Y Refi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay.
They tailor each loan individually, they can save you thousands of dollars, and you can get your life back.
We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt.
Many of them don't even know how much they owe.
Why Refi can help.
Just go to whyrefi.com.
That's the letter Y, then refi.com.
And remember, whyrefi doesn't care what your credit score is.
Just go to whyrefi.com and tell them your friend Andrew sent you.
We're going to move quick here with Senator Mullen.
I want to finish this last thought, though, just before we move on to the next topic.
Would the states then sue?
So, say we get it in this appropriate or the funding bill starting October 1.
I mean, that's like a month before midterms.
Would they sue?
I mean, this could get very messy.
Well, they could because mail in ballots, early voting, some of that starts prior to that.
So, I think they probably could.
We could get into litigation.
You know, the Democrats immediately would put a stay.
They'd get some liberal guy on a bench that would put a stay on it.
But I don't.
I think you could tighten the language up enough that you could move it forward prior to that happening.
There's a lot to this, Andrew, because we, for instance, mail out ballots need to go out 45 days before the election for deployed troops.
And so, but they obviously have the right to vote.
So the thing you could do it on is in person voting or when you walk in to hand the ballot, some of the stuff would be litigated through that and be a mess.
But it's possible.
Listen, I think it's worth having that fight.
Let's get messy.
Yeah, I agree.
100%.
Okay, Senator, we're going to move on here.
Trump accounts.
President Trump did a big thing about this.
Why I want to make it a big thing.
Turning Point has, for our staff at Turning Point USA, Turning Point Action is going to be contributing $1,000 to all newborn kids from our staff.
By the way, we've got a bunch of pregnant ladies running around here.
Investing in Newborns for the Future 00:03:52
So, like, this is going to be an expensive promise.
Erica Kirk announced this.
And why I love this is we have this clip from Charlie.
I went and dug through and found it this morning because I was supposed to do a Fox and Friends hit myself about it.
Got it.
Push because of the home and thing.
But Charlie loved this idea.
436.
This could change the game and make people capitalists at age seven.
I could imagine a bunch of nine and 10 year olds being like, hey, our stock is up today.
By the way, if you win a spelling bee, they could be like, hey, I'm going to put 25 bucks into your Invest America account.
If you win a sports championship, it's a way where moms, dads, grandfathers, companies, employers, you can tokenize this where kids can actually then.
Save their entire childhood and have something to point forward to and be co owners in America, not just renters.
You're a capitalist.
You're a business owner.
How big of a move is this?
What a great idea.
Charlie loved it.
Tell us about it.
I think it's huge.
You know, my son just got married.
And then over the holidays, he said that he was, I say just got married.
He got married before Thanksgiving.
But then over the holidays, they said they had an unexpected pregnancy, right?
And most kids, when they get younger or when they get married younger, I say kids, my kids are younger, but they don't have money to put in a savings account.
And if you can imagine, you put $1,000 in, and if you don't put another penny in, And you keep that set there invested until you're able to draw Social Security.
You'll have over $2 million in it, and your payment will be more than Social Security.
So, not only is the president saying, hey, Social Security isn't actually the best idea for just retirement, but let's go ahead and set them up for success.
But God forbid something happens when you're 18, 19, 20, or 25, or 30 and you have to grab it because of some unexpected ordeal.
It gives you the ability to have something to fall back on when most.
People, especially young people, they don't have a nest egg to fall back on.
This allows you to make choices for your future and teaches you how to be responsible.
We did the same thing with our kids.
My wife and I, we didn't have kids until we were later.
Then they wouldn't stop.
Then we ended up with six kids.
But we started investing in an account for them.
My 22 year old son today called me about buying additional stock to invest in his account that he already has because he doesn't want to touch it because he sees it growing.
That's That's a lot.
There's a lot of ownership inside this.
And of course, leave it up to President Trump, who's a business guy, Charlie Kirk, who's a business guy that can see the future in this when Democrats can't argue against it, but I bet you they would if they could.
If they could.
Yeah.
You know what's crazy about this, though?
Charlie was all about making sure the next generation wasn't radicalized.
He wanted them to have skin in the game in America, investors in America.
He saw this as a way to do it.
So if you fully fund one of these accounts, so you get $1,000 seed money.
And then you fund it with parents, grandparents, spelling beast championship, philanthropists, which is $5,000 a year.
By the time they're 21, according to SP trends over the years, it could be worth between $400,000 and $500,000 for a 21 year old.
And get this if you hold the principal till 28, because of compound interest, because then you're really gaining momentum, it could be worth $1.9 million.
They have it at 1.09, but I looked it up.
The Treasury has it up to 1.9.
This is a huge, huge potential.
I don't know, Blake, if you wanted to weigh in on that.
I'm just thinking about how in 18 years we might have some irresponsible people like blowing their Trump money on one thing.
Like cars.
And they'll make a stupid social media post about it.
Yeah, that's true.
And there will be the split between people who blew their money and people who used it responsibly.
Like there is.
Blake, here's the thing on that is when the first time most people go bust, they go bankrupt, they learn from it.
Compound Interest and Treasury Secrets 00:02:43
And so when they waste money like that, the next time they start a Accumulating it because if you've done it once, sometimes you feel like you can do it again.
There's motivation to do it again because you know it's possible.
When you don't know it's possible, you don't know what starts to reach towards.
And so, even those that fail because they go blow it on something stupid, that'll be a life lesson at 28 rather than at 58.
Center, last topic, and then we got two minutes here, so I got to go quick.
461, Bruce Springsteen comes out with a new song, and I just, I'm so infuriated by it.
461.
All right, so he says they've been roaming and killing, and they're going to remember the names of Renee Good and Alex Preddy, the people who died.
And it just occurs to me: where's the song for Jocelyn Nungary?
Where's the song for Rachel Moore?
Where's the song for Lake and Riley?
The selective outrage just absolutely infuriates me, and I'm so ticked off about it because it's just pure propaganda.
I didn't know Bruce was still relevant.
He's not.
So I don't really care.
I mean, the guy is so ridiculous, he doesn't represent any values.
That America believes in today.
And so, to me, I never liked his songs, anyways.
He's just even more irrelevant to me now.
Blake's a huge fan.
I'm a big hater.
No, I'm a big hater.
No, it's just, it shows that they very much have, they all just really wish it was still 1962.
They all want to be writing protest anthems to overthrow Jim Crow.
And the truth is, we got rid of that a half century ago, thank goodness.
Would you call it civil rights?
It's like, Envy.
It's civil rights envy.
Yeah, it's like we got rid of that more than half a century ago, thank goodness.
And they've just been trying to recapture it ever since.
And it comes at the cost of just labeling America an evil country, which it's clearly not.
And our brave men and women in ICE, man, I just, that is such a tough job.
Screw this guy.
Honestly, absolute garbage human.
I mean, you're upset that ICE is doing their job.
I mean, they're literally doing their job.
They're enforcing federal law, and you're upset by that.
I don't understand it, but I think Blake's absolutely spot on.
Senator Mark Wayne Mullen from the great state of Oklahoma.
Thank you, Senator.
We have your back.
We'll talk to you again soon.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.
Export Selection