The Fury Continues + The Clintons Before Congress + Primary Day in Texas
Blake and the host dissect U.S. strikes on Iran, questioning $6B uranium stockpiles and Marco Rubio’s three-part justification—preemptive missile defense, retaliatory deterrence, and Israel’s alleged "dogwalking" role, while Trump’s claims of forcing Israel’s hand complicate narratives. Meanwhile, Texas’ Ken Paxton leads John Cornyn in Senate polls despite a $100M spending gap, framing his victory as a conservative seismic shift. Ana Paulina Luna’s Clinton deposition exposes evasive responses on Epstein ties, with Bill Clinton laughing at salacious imagery and Hillary refusing to speculate, fueling calls for deeper trafficking probes—yet the episode ends with a contrast: modern desensitization to scandals versus past outrage, like Clinton’s Lewinsky fallout. [Automatically generated summary]
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'll 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.
All right, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.
It is March 3rd.
Welcome, Blake.
Howdy.
So I have been publicly calling for the administration to sell this war more fully, to give us a more comprehensive explanation of why, why do we strike?
Why do we strike now against Iran?
Blake, you had been doing the same.
You'd been noting the same.
I got a bunch of calls from reporters yesterday asking, you know, do I feel like the admin's done a sufficient job?
Well, guess what?
You do not have to be necessarily in favor of what's going on in Iran to admit that yesterday they added a lot more detail to the sales pitch.
And I think that's good.
They should be forced to explain kinetic use of U.S. military forces in the Middle East, absolutely, and to explain the why we deserve that.
So we're going to go through this, and we're going to have Sean Davis on from the Federalists specifically on the quote from Rubio that seemed to really cause a bunch of headlines yesterday explaining he kind of had a three-part answer.
And in one of those, it seemed to suggest that we got involved because Israel was going to act.
And if Israel acted, they were going to shoot us anyway.
So we might as well preemptively attack Iran.
So we'll get into that, but there's more layers than just that clip.
Now, by the way, Trump has just responded.
He's doing a bylap with the Chancellor of Germany currently.
And we're going to also later in the hour break down the difference between France, Germany, Spain, and the UK.
UK.
The UK.
The UK.
So anyways, here we go.
Let's start with Steve Witkoff.
Remember now, Steve Witkoff was negotiating alongside Jared Kushner as we were hoping for a diplomatic solution to this Iranian issue.
And Steve Witkoff dropped an absolute bombshell last night on Sean Hannity's show, 395.
In that first meeting, both the Iranian negotiators said to us directly, with no shame, that they controlled 460 kilograms of 60%, and they're aware that that could make 11 nuclear bombs, and that was the beginning of their negotiating stance.
So they were proud of it.
They were proud that they had evaded all sorts of oversight protocols to get to a place where they could deliver 11 nuclear bombs.
All right.
So 11 nuclear bombs, instantly, Blake, your mind went to weapons of mass destruction.
Exactly.
Now, that's a strong claim.
If it's true, that's a very strong point in favor of the administration's position, which is they're just clearly, endlessly going to pursue this very dangerous thing.
But we have been around this sort of thing before.
We've seen this movie before, yes.
And it will be desirable.
It will be good if we can find a bunch of enriched uranium in the rubble of these facilities eventually.
Of course, we also don't want ground troops to go looking for it.
Yep.
Well, and listen, I'll explain why I think this is different.
And that is because this was direct witness, eyewitness.
This wasn't relying on intelligence or, you know, some ideologue that's trying to find intelligence where none exists in field.
This is apparently Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner sitting across the table from negotiators, and they bragged about it.
That's a little bit different.
Now, if that's proven to be false and that they were just lying to maybe strengthen their negotiating position, that's also telling.
But it doesn't mean that he's lying, right?
It doesn't mean that Steve Witkoff is lying here.
And it's an important data point.
So I, you know, listen, I've seen Matt Walsh's arguments that, hey, if the Fordo strikes were so successful, why did we need to go in again?
And I disagree with only that point.
I agree with a lot of what Walsh was saying in that tweet.
But here's the deal.
A dog backed in the corner is more likely to bite.
They realized that their time was ticking, right?
That, you know, President Trump had this line saying this was the last best chance to do this.
Okay.
So, and that seems to basically be in sync with what Marco Rubio then said, right?
So Marco Rubio comes to the podium and says, I don't know why there's all this confusion about this.
You know, I think we've made the case.
Well, I didn't think they'd made the case, but I like that he was addressing it.
So kudos to him.
Let's start with reason number one, 420.
The United States is conducting an operation to eliminate the threat of Iran's short-range ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their Navy, particularly to naval assets.
That is what it is focused on doing right now, and it's doing quite successfully.
I'll leave it to the Pentagon and the Department of War to discuss the tactics behind that and the progress that's being made.
That is the clear objective of this mission.
All right, so he says the objective is to take out the ballistic missiles and the naval threat.
Okay, when we talk about the Strait of Hormuz, this all becomes very clear.
About 20% of the world's energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz.
About 14% to 15% of all trade goes through the Strait of Hormuz.
So he continues.
Reason number two, 421.
It was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone, the United States or Israel or anyone, they were going to respond and respond against the United States.
The orders had been delegated down to the field commanders.
It was automatic, and in fact, it bear to be true because, in fact, within an hour of the initial attack on the leadership compound, the missile forces in the south and in the north, for that matter, had already been activated to launch.
In fact, those had already been pre-positioned.
Okay, so he makes the point that we were going to get attacked no matter what happened automatically, that that had already been communicated down to the field commanders.
Okay, he continues, reason number three, 424.
The assessment that was made that if we stood and waited for that attack to come first before we hit them, we would suffer much higher casualties.
And so the president made the very wise decision.
We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action.
We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces.
And we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed.
And then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and didn't act.
All right, so I know this is a little bit clip-heavy, but this was literally a four-part answer that he gave.
This is reason number four, I guess you would say.
It's really three reasons.
He said three, but it's really fourth reason.
And he talks about now this conventional weapon shield that would make them immune from any threats in the future.
That would become too dangerous to attack them.
432.
Why does Iran want that ballistic missile capability?
What they are trying to do and have been trying to do for a very long time is build a conventional weapons capability as a shield where they can hide behind.
Meaning, there would come a point where they have so many conventional missiles, so many drones, and it can inflict so much damage that no one can do anything about their nuclear program.
That is what they were trying to do, is put themselves in a place of immunity where the damage they could inflict on the region would be so high that no one can do anything about their nuclear program or their nuclear ambitions.
They are producing, by some estimates, over 100 of these missiles a month.
Compare that to the six or seven interceptors that can be built a month.
They can build 100 of these a month, not to mention the thousands of one-way attack drones that they also have.
They've been doing this for a very long time, and by the way, they've been doing it under sanction.
Well, we got a lot of clips there, and so we've heard that they had a giant pile of uranium and they were going to go for a bomb.
We've heard all these ballistic missiles, and we heard Israel was going to attack anyway, so we felt we had to join or there would be more casualties.
There's going to be a lot of discussion about that one for sure.
We want to hear from all of you.
Do you think the arguments have been strong or not?
We want to hear from the base about this.
Freedom at charliekirk.com us.
We'll take a look at those.
This year, it marks a very critical moment in our country's history.
As the opposition grows more aggressive and unapologetic and insane, the fight now reaches into everyday decisions we make.
Patriot Mobile has been standing on the front lines fighting for freedom for more than 12 years.
They don't just deliver top-tier wireless service, which they do, but they're activists like me, like Turning Point, who truly care about our country.
Patriot Mobile offers prioritized premium access on all three major U.S. networks, giving you the same or better coverage than the main carriers.
That means fast speeds and dependable nationwide coverage, backed by 100% U.S.-based customer support.
They also offer unlimited data plans, mobile hotspots, international roaming, and more.
With simple, seamless activation, you can switch in minutes.
Keep your number, keep your phone, or upgrade.
And here's the difference.
When you switch to Patriot Mobile, you'll be part of a powerful stream of giving that directly funds the Christian conservative movement.
Call 972 Patriot today or go to patriotmobile.com slash Charlie.
Use promo code Charlie for a free month of service.
That's patriotmobile.com slash Charlie or call 972 Patriot and make the switch today.
Joining us now is Sean Davis, CEO and co-founder of the Federalist, very smart man.
Sean, welcome back to the show, my friend.
Preemptive Attack Debate00:14:36
You and I were talking last night because you had this tweet.
I thought it was very, very smartly worded.
And you quoted kind of a famous quote that says, there's always two reasons that a man does something.
One, the reason he states out loud, and then the real reason.
And you were referring to Rubio's statement about why we went into war.
And he made this comment.
We already played it earlier.
He said that, you know, we knew Israel was going to strike.
And so we knew that America was going to hit when they did, America was going to get hit when they did that.
So we decided to preemptively attack.
Did Israel sort of, to use the parlance, dogwalk us into this war, or is there more to the story?
Yeah, well, it's interesting.
There seems to have been a bit of a walk back from what Rubio said, from what Johnson said after him.
I think from what Cotton said this morning, what we've read in some news reports, Trump in the Oval Office today said, no, no, no, if anyone got anyone into this war, it was us getting Israel into the war.
I don't know if I would personally say dog walk.
I get why some people might.
I think it is a complicated situation.
We have intertwining interests with Israel.
They're an ally and they're a friend.
We also at times have some contradictory interests.
There may be things they want to do that aren't great for us and vice versa.
But I actually think it's great for it to be out there that, hey, we're not out there acting on our own.
This was not all us, nor is Israel out there all acting on their own.
They had interests.
We had interest.
We were working together to do this.
It's been odd to me to see so many people recoil at that reality being laid out like, oh, that didn't happen or, oh, you're not allowed to say that.
Well, multiple people said that.
I think we should have an open conversation about how we're doing things in the Middle East and in whose interests they are.
Yeah, well, by the way, you mentioned this clip.
It just happened with the Chancellor of Germany.
So let's go ahead and play it.
437.
And if Israel forced your hand to launch these strikes against Iran, did anyone pull the United States into this war?
No, I might have forced their hand.
You see, we were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first.
They were going to attack.
If we didn't do it, they were going to attack first.
I felt strongly about that.
And we have great negotiators, great people, people that do this very successfully and have done it all their lives very successfully.
And based on the way the negotiation was going, I think they were going to attack first.
And I didn't want that to happen.
So if anything, I might have forced Israel's hand.
But Israel was ready and we were ready.
And we've had a very, very powerful impact.
All right.
So I'm going to throw it to Blake now because I just put you on the spot, Sean.
Blake, what do you make of this?
Is it just a complex situation where both things can sort of be true at the same time?
Well, I don't know.
I think, truthfully, what I lean towards with what the president said is the president very much never wants to suggest he was influenced.
He's always the driver of events.
He's always the pilot of actions.
And in a lot of ways, he is.
He's such an active force throughout everything.
But at the same time, I do feel like Rubio didn't say that for no reason, but it comes within layers here because it could be that the president got on board with A, some sort of war with Iran months ago.
I mean, we were obviously building up towards it for ages, and then there was disagreement on specific timings, specific actions.
And, You know, I don't really want to hard commit on a specific answer because I suspect a lot of stuff will come out in the days and weeks, months, years to come.
This will be dissected over and over again.
And if you looked at the Iraq war when it happened, there was a lot of false stuff about the Iraq war when it unfolded, and we only really came to understand it years later.
Yeah, and I will say this: just because something is in, that something is good for Israel doesn't mean that's the reason why we did it.
So America could make a decision that our leaders determine is in our national security interest, and it might be good for Israel, but that might not be the driving force, right?
So both things could in theory be true at the same time.
I wanted to play this clip really quick, Sean, just because I, you know, this is an offensive action taken by Israel where they were meeting, gathering the religious leaders to pick a new Ayatollah, a new supreme leader.
And they apparently have not figured out Zoom yet.
So 394.
I'm told by a senior Israeli official that the Israelis just struck the Supreme Council gathering where the Iranians were meeting to choose a new supreme leader.
This is a significant development and again speaks to the Israeli intelligence about this war.
They just targeted the meeting in Tehran where what's left of the leadership was gathering to choose a new supreme leader.
I feel like they could have, you know, we're usually against mail voting.
I think I would have, if I were Iranian, I would have approved postal voting.
An absentee mail.
That meeting should have been an email.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, but it goes to show the lengths at which Mossad has infiltrated the Iranian infrastructure inside the country.
They seem to know where these guys are at at all times.
There's that famous clip.
I don't know if you've seen it, Sean, where Ahmadinejad is talking about they, you know, they developed this task force to go after Mossad and root out Mossad within the Iranian ranks, only to find out that the head of that task force was a Mossad agent.
So, I mean, whoops.
Yeah, I mean, listen, you don't have to love this conflict.
You don't have to be in support of it.
But, you know, hat tip where it's due, credit where it's due, the talents are on full display here.
You just have to sort of acknowledge that much.
One thing I actually love about the Israelis and the Brits is unlike us, they kind of never abandon actual human intelligence.
We seem overly reliant on technology and surveillance, and they've just decided, you know, both the Brits and the Israelis, no, we're going to go in and have people as deep cover assets for decades.
There's something we could learn from that.
Yeah, I totally agree.
You made another really good point here, though, Sean.
You talked about when we built the Iraqi embassy, which has come under fire now.
It was back in 2004, 2005, spent all this money building up an embassy there.
And now it's, and we've done this throughout the region, and now it's a sitting duck that we have to defend.
What's your thinking here?
Why was that strategically a mistake?
How should we position ourselves in the Middle East?
Yeah, so a lot of our conversation about what's going on in Iran has been in the vacuum of what's happening there right now.
And obviously there are reasons for that.
You can't go back in time and reverse things you've already done.
But the question I ask is, why?
How were we so vulnerable to Iranian attack over there?
It's because we have bases in installations everywhere.
And as I wrote in that tweet, when I worked for Tom Coburn in 2005, one of the first amendments he made me do as a staffer was one defunding the Iraqi embassy, U.S. embassy in Iraq, which hadn't been built yet, something like a billion or a billion and a half dollars.
And he said, look, as soon as you do that, you are permanently in that country for 50 or 100 years.
You're guaranteeing that you're going to be vulnerable, that you're going to have bases, that we're going to be surrounded by people who hate us.
It's a similar issue in Libya, by the way, which I think is a good cautionary example.
Gaddafi disarmed in good faith under Bush, and then along in the next term comes Obama and Hillary decides to depose him.
They have him thrown out and murdered.
And then what happens a couple years later?
We end up, because of a secret CIA outpost in there, which was helping to traffic arms.
They claim it was to take them off the streets, but helping to traffic arms.
And then we end up seeing our ambassador, two Navy SEALs, and an intel expert from state getting killed.
It is a logical result when you are so far flung.
You have so many people in installations and places surrounded by people that hate us that you're going to be at risk.
And maybe we should be taking a look going forward rather than having to respond and go to war anytime someone over there threatens us.
Maybe we just shouldn't be in a position in a lot of these places where we're so easily threatened.
Final question, Sean.
There's been much made about our munition stockpiles.
Are you hearing anything?
President Trump said we could, you know, we have basically unlimited.
Is that what you're hearing?
Or is there a certain type of missile that we're more concerned about?
Well, yeah, this is actually one of the major reasons so many of us were opposed to what we were doing in Ukraine, giving all of our stockpiles to them without thinking, hey, what's going to happen to us if we actually need those for our national interests, not just Ukraine's.
I think we're starting to see some of that now.
I do worry about a lot of interceptor missiles, what I call defensive missiles, THADS, that are used to intercept and stop incoming Iranian missiles.
I worry that our allies over there, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, the Saudis, the Israelis, I worry about us running low on those a lot more than I worry about us running low on offensive munitions.
Yeah, and I actually asked, you know, how many of these missiles we can produce a month.
I was like, we need to ramp it up.
Apparently, we've signed a contract with Boeing recently to double the output, but our current 4?
No, our current output is like 60 a month.
I mean, that's max, max, max, like 60, 70 a month.
So, and they're flying, you know, $20,000 drones at us that we're taking out with a $2 million missile.
And, you know, the maths don't math, Sean Davis.
Excellent analysis, as always, Sean.
I must follow at the Federalist as well as on X. You're always throwing a wrench into the gears, and I love it because the contrary thinking is like super, super important right now.
Sean Davis, excellent work.
Thank you.
We'll see you soon.
Thank you, sir.
All right.
We asked for your emails, freedom at charliekirk.com, and you delivered Blake.
Yeah, let's get a few of them.
Christopher said, hello, Charlie Kirk Show.
The argument has not been made strongly, but Islamist Iran is the mortal enemy of the U.S.
It's too bad Reagan didn't destroy the Ayatollah's regime in the 1980s.
Now Trump has to clean up Jimmy Carter's giant mess.
How about Lindsay says, I appreciate Marco's response and explanation.
That was enough for me.
I trust President Trump.
Mark says, Charlie would not have questioned Trump.
You guys are off the rails.
I assure you, we are doing our best to communicate how we think Charlie would have felt through all this.
We, of course, can't know.
He's not with us.
Well, listen, I walked with Charlie alongside, so did you, Blake, about the way Charlie handled Operation Midnight Hammer, the lead up to that.
Privately, you know, he obviously expressed his, you know, his reticence.
And then, but he said, you know, honestly, he said privately and publicly to me, he said, listen, if Trump decides to go, we're going to have his back.
Okay?
I mean, Charlie worked his butt off probably harder than anybody else in this country besides Trump himself to get Trump elected.
And listen, I think that we are not questioning Trump's leadership here or his instincts.
But listen, anytime you go into a regime change situation, there are going to be unintended consequences.
And to act like there's not going to be unintended consequences, I think is foolish.
But we have his back.
And now that we're going, we're praying for success.
We're praying for the security and safety of our troops.
I woke up this morning at 2:30 because my daughter woke me up.
And I just literally started praying for our troops because I was feeling anxiety about it.
And I want them to be safe.
There's six dead servicemen.
So listen, we're trying to honor the spirit of Charlie, but obviously we don't know how he would have reacted.
Anybody tells you he would have, you know, he's not here right now.
Yeah.
We have some more.
Kathleen says, I strongly support President Trump's operation in Iran.
The ICBMs the Iranian regime was working on were intended for the U.S.
And President Trump is good at multitasking and working hard to help the American people.
He has already done a number of things to help the economy.
And she also apparently sent an email about possibly moving to South Dakota.
I'm going to have to read that one.
I'll get back to you on that one, Kathleen.
I am, of course, a big fan of that.
Several others.
I think the most common one is a lot of we trust President Trump, which is what we said is generally what Charlie's point of view would be, we think, which is he would have argued against this going up to it.
But if the president heard him and the president would listen to him, if the president listened to him and did it anyway, Charlie would give him the grace and trust to say, he knows things I don't.
He has a good record on these.
I think that's what his posture would be.
President Trump has had a good record on not getting us embroiled in forever wars, okay?
Got to give him a little leash, a little room to maneuver here.
He's proven himself to be a very adept operator on the world stage.
So here's what I want to get into now.
There's a couple different storylines.
There's the oil, how much China is relying on the oil.
Maybe we'll get to that in an hour or two if we have a segment.
But let's just go around the horn and get the European reaction to the Iranian strikes because they are varied and it's kind of surprising.
Honestly, I want to start with the honorary Europeans of Canada because that is the one I find the funniest.
We've had a lot of friction with last year.
Carney has definitely tried to turn himself into basically the foil, the foil of Trump, the avatar of being his critic.
Like he's talking about, oh, we've realigned.
Like we can't rely on these old alliances.
He's shifting towards China.
And then as soon as this broke out, he puts out a statement that's basically, we support America's operations.
Well, let's start with another one then, too.
German Chancellor was just in the White House of President Trump, 438.
We are on the same page in terms of getting this terrible regime in Tehran away.
And we will talk about the day after what will happen then if they are out.
Macron's Tough Talk00:03:47
Macron had some strong words.
439.
Our deterrent is both robust and efficient.
All those who would be bold enough to strike at France must be aware of the unbearable cost that it would take on them.
So he's talking tough.
Macron, the French, they always like to talk tough, and then we'll see how it really plays out.
But hey, broadly supportive.
Kirstarmer is on the list for Trump right now.
Here it is, 444.
Mr. Speaker, we all remember the mistakes of Iraq.
And we have learned those lessons.
Any UK actions must always have a lawful basis and a viable thought-through plan.
I say again, we were not involved in the initial strikes on Iran, and we will not join offensive action now.
And by the way, so Kier Starmer was not giving access to American bases or a UK basis for American strikes.
They have since reversed that decision, but it was with a lot of hemming and hawing and hand-wringing, and President Trump is not too happy about it.
440.
By the way, I'm not happy with the UK either.
That island that you read about, the lease, okay, you made it for whatever reason he made a lease of the island.
Somebody came and took it away from him.
And it's taken three, four days for us to work out where we can land.
It would have been much more convenient landing there as opposed to flying many extra hours.
So we are very surprised.
This is not Winston Churchill that we're dealing with.
He went on to repeat that, by the way.
But perhaps the most, I don't know, annoying NATO partner would be Spain.
Spain denies this 443.
Spain denies U.S. military use of its bases for Iran attack.
The leftist government in Madrid said the war against Iran violated both international law and the agreement between Spain and the United States for use of air bases.
Now, we actually have, like, I think two or three in Spain.
I know Rhoda's one.
These are really complex installations there in Spain.
So this is a big deal.
President Trump is now threatening to embargo all business that the U.S. does with Spain.
He's very angry.
He's very upset.
I will say, I had this thought at first.
He's known to admire President William McKinley, who, for those of you who don't remember high school, his U.S. history, fought the Spanish-American War to get Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, and Cuba.
Yeah, well, and so what's interesting here is that Spain just, this is the same leftist government that just, I guess, legalized essentially a million.
They said it was going to be 500,000 immigrants.
It's going to be more like a million.
So welcome to the new Spain.
This leftist, you know, elections matter.
They have consequences.
Spain's about to find out.
So all of this is very, very interesting to see the varied responses.
I'm grateful, oddly enough, to the Chancellor of Germany for being very clear-minded, very firm on this.
And actually, also the Mark, what's it, Ruta of NATO has been very, very supportive.
So lots of good alliances forming, but a few that are more suspect.
We're going to keep our eyes on our alliances.
Primary Race Spending00:14:57
The online world moves fast and it's moving even faster these days.
That's why TikTok approaches teen safety with families in mind from the start.
Because discovery and creativity are both wonderful things, but it's important to make sure that safety comes first as well.
On TikTok, teenagers have over 50 built-in protections right from when they join.
Accounts for teens all start private by default.
They're not open to the entire world.
And for those under 16, direct messages are turned off.
Only their friends can comment on their videos.
And that kind of approach matters because feeling confident and comfortable about these platforms your teenagers are on shouldn't mean digging through a bunch of menus and trying to set everything up yourself and worrying that you got it wrong.
TikTok is taking a proactive approach.
Their protections are built in from the moment those teenagers join, so that safety and peace of mind for parents is there right from the start.
All of this is to say, when safety comes first, discovery and creativity can follow without fear.
Learn more by going to tick tock.com/slash guardiansguide.
That's tick tock.com/slash guardiansguide.
We are joined on set by Tyler Boyer, COO of Turning Point Action.
We're going to be going in depth into Texas because tonight is the night, the big primary, and we have the man himself, Attorney General Ken Paxton, running for U.S. Senate in the great state of Texas.
Welcome back to the show, Mr. Attorney General.
It's a big day for you.
What are we seeing?
What are we thinking?
You know, so good to be back.
I can remember talking to Charlie about this over a year ago, and it's hard to believe that this day is actually here.
I think it's going to be a good day.
I think people have grown weary of a senator who has been claiming to be a Republican but hasn't accomplished anything for our state.
I've literally traveled this state since April the 8th.
I've asked every single person, whether it was one person or 3,000 people, can you name one great accomplishment of John Cornyn?
And even his supporters can't come up with an answer.
It means it's time for a change.
I think the voters are going to do it today.
Oh, Ken, Mr. Attorney General, this has been a David versus Goliath fight.
This is the most expensive race in Texas history, I think.
Primary race.
The primary race that's ever been spent.
I think U.S. history for a primary.
Yeah, it's totally insane the amount of money that's been spent by the establishment to target you.
And yet, every poll is showing you, every single poll is showing you, you know, not just a little bit ahead, not just competitive, but pretty significantly ahead.
You know, what does this say?
I mean, just speak a little bit to this about this fight because nobody really understands, I think, on the outside and across the country that, you know, when you actually tabulate all the money that the campaign that Cornyn spent, all the outside group money, it's probably close to $100 million that's been spent against you.
And yet, the people of Texas are still coming out, you know, big behind Paxton.
So, what has that fight been like?
And where do you go from here to help kind of unify the entire state of Texas and the rest of the country?
Yeah, so that kind of thing never happens again.
Yeah, it's pretty shocking.
I think he has spent close to $100 million.
We've spent around $3 million.
That's quite a disparity, even if you're bad at math.
That's a big number.
I think part of it is one of the things I looked at when I got in the race was Texas is not like a lot of states.
It's just so big.
And so getting name ID is not easy.
Even if you've done really good things, if you're a congressman in Texas, you just want a 38.
If you're a state senator, you're just one of 31.
If you're a house member, you're just one of 150.
So it's really difficult to take that next step against somebody that's been in public office for over 40 years.
So I looked at that.
When I tested it, my name ID back in February of last year was 90%.
John's was in the 70s.
So I knew even if he outspent me now, did I think he would outspend me 33 to 1?
No.
But I felt like somebody with name ID had to run.
And it wasn't going to be somebody from Congress.
It wasn't going to be somebody from the Texas legislature because they just don't have the name ID.
It's literally that simple.
You have to have the name ID.
And because I'm in office and I can keep working and keep talking about it, it's allowed me to stay fresh in the minds of voters despite the tremendous number of negative ads and the number of false ads that he's wrote about himself, claiming to be a MAGA conservative, pro-border, all that, you know, pro-border.
Well, all of it was false.
Yeah, Ken, I remember talking with you, and when this whole kind of race was gathering steam, you said to me, you said, watch, he's going to vote lockstep with the president.
All of a sudden, he's going to be Mr. MAGA general.
I mean, it was as soon as you announced you knew this was going to be kind of the pattern he was going to walk.
But here's what else is interesting: is that you are getting outspent 31.
You have ads on TV every day, right?
I mean, this is pretty clear.
I mean, it's multiple, multiple times a day, just a deluge of anti-Paxton media right now.
I've seen, I was watching Fox News on Sunday because of the efforts of the war, and I saw three ads in a row that were John Cornyn, one positive, two different negative ads on me.
And that was happening all day long.
So, you know, what's that like?
It's like, I mean, I think it almost wears people out.
It's too much.
I mean, he's doing more than getting a message out.
It's overkill.
And I think people have grown weary of it.
It's obviously it's helped close some of the gap because originally I was at 25 points ahead.
And because I haven't had the money to compete, it's closed some of the gap, but I don't think it's closed the gap to the degree that they expected it to because there's too many educated voters.
The people he called radicals two days ago, he called them radicals that are voting in the Republican primary.
Those are the people that actually know what's going on and they know what he's done.
Well, I have a go ahead, Tyler.
We brought you in.
I was just going to say, I mean, this has all of the elements that we're walking into to be one of the greatest upsets in establishment history.
And again, no one is more deserving of it than you.
That's actually fought on the side of conservatives.
You know, there's no question when people that know you and have done any investigative work know that you would be a far superior vote in the U.S. Senate than John Cornyn.
But, you know, we look at this and the lessons that come out of this, because everybody that I've seen talk about this goes, oh, well, you know, we might have to spend money to help Paxton win in a general.
And, you know, that is such a silly argument because you look at this $100 million.
A fraction of that $100 million is what it takes to win in general.
Yeah.
How much money was poured in from outside PAX and the NRSC here?
And so this looks at, this tells you everything.
This race is going to probably be the heart and soul.
Your race is the heart and soul of the future of the conservative movement.
I think this is probably next to Donald Trump shocking the world in 2016.
This is probably the second biggest shock maybe in the history of modern American politics.
Yeah.
And here I have two questions off the back of this point that Tyler's making for the Attorney General here.
Can you win without a runoff?
And question two, if you have to go to a runoff, does polling show how much of Wesley Hunt's vote you would accumulate?
So first of all, let me just say this winning, being a sitting of a senator, if you'll go back because of the way the campaign finance laws are set up, and I was limited to 7,000 a person and only half could be used in the primary, 3,500.
Think about how many people I had to get to just to do one ad in Texas, which is $3, $4, $5 million.
And yet, you look at incumbency, senatorial incumbency, you go back 40, 50 years, how many senators have lost?
You got Richard Luger in 2012 in a smaller state who was completely, you know, had gone left.
And then, second, you had Mike Lee winning in a convention state where you don't have to spend much money.
So you're right.
It does not happen very much.
As far as winning in a not having a runoff, I've looked at the numbers.
It's not impossible.
It's hard because what people don't realize, there's eight people in my race.
So everybody's, so I have to, I would tell people it's seven-on-one basketball and I got to outscore everybody and they're all trying to score and they're all playing defense too.
So it's not just that it's two other people.
There's seven other people that I have to outscore all of them.
But I've looked at the numbers and I've seen polls after early voting that suggest that I'm in the 40s, that Corinne's in the low 30s, that Wesley's in the teens with about 13% undecided.
So if the right number of undecided break my way and if the right if that trend continues through election day and the right number of people from Wesley, because he's lost a few points over the last couple of days, because Cornyn pounded him, and it's not impossible.
It's just challenging to get to 50% plus one with eight people.
Right.
And do we have any idea?
Well, how about we put it this way?
Where do people go?
What's the action item?
What do they need to do right now?
So right now, I'm just telling them, if you haven't voted, go vote.
We still have till 7 p.m. Central Time.
If family members haven't voted, go vote.
And then encourage all your friends to go vote.
It sounds like a small job.
I mean, it still may be a lot of hassle for you, but the reality is it literally could make the difference between having to go into a runoff and not having to go into a runoff.
And I always tell people from the beginning of time, you know, in order to change power, people used to have to fight with their hands.
Then they had to throw rocks and then arrows and then guns and bombs.
Today, all we have to do is show up to vote and get our friends to go vote.
It's a lot more, it's a lot easier than it's been ever.
And so we just need to go do it.
Well, don't believe the negative attacks.
Ken Paxton can win the general and win it handily and easily.
That's basically the attack against you, Ken.
It's pretty funny.
I've absorbed a lot of them.
We've got your back.
You're going to be a great next U.S. Senator from the state of Texas.
And so go with God today, win big, and hopefully avoid the runoff.
But if not, we got your back there too.
Well, thank you, Brown.
Thank you.
Okay, so Tyler, let's go around the horn in Texas.
What are we watching?
Let's lay out the following of Kim Paxton, how this matters.
Texas is at a crossroads that some states have entered into, which is, are you going more MAGA?
Are you going more conservative long term?
Or are you going to go establishment?
And the Ken Paxton race is really important because if Paxton is successful, which it looks like he should be, and they make him a U.S. Senator, Texas is going to the underlying Bush control, you know, control arm is basically annihilated.
Yeah.
And this is very similar to Arizona with McCain.
Arizona had to fight this big war, basically, and the McCain influence dissipated.
The Paxton race is really important because if Paxton loses, it gives a revitalization to the Bushwing.
This sets up all the rest of the races because there's so many other races that are happening in Texas today that are super, super critical.
Probably the second most important next to the Paxton race is Dan Crenshaw's district.
So the redistricting happened.
Districts didn't change too much in this district.
That was mostly a majority, all the same for Dan Crenshaw.
But a gentleman named Steve Toth, who's in the state legislature right now, who's really well liked, has been a leader on that front, decided, hey, I'm going to run against Dan Crenshaw, even though this seems like a near-impossible task.
He's really well liked, really well supported by the donor community that has had some real questions for Dan Crenshaw and the positions he's taken.
And polling is showing Steve Toth within the realm of possibility of being able to defeat Dan Crenshaw.
So if you're in, we're going to call you out because some people don't know their district.
If you're north of Houston, if you're in the woodlands, if you're in spring in Texas, it's centered around the woodlands.
So if you're anywhere near the woodlands in North Houston, your primary match is always matters.
Wherever you are in Texas, you have an opportunity to replace Dan Crenshaw with Steve Toth, who will be a Freedom Caucus-level, likely congressman, which is a big, huge change.
That's a huge change.
So between Paxton and Toth, those are the two races to keep an eye on in Texas today.
If those both go positively for both those gentlemen today, Texas has turned a corner that's heading a lot more conservatively than the Republican Party.
Texas went for Trump, I think, 13 or 14 points.
So it was a big win in Texas.
A lot of people were predicting like four points, five points, six points.
And it ends up going, you know, 14, almost 15 points.
And it's funny you bring up this number.
So the number to look for tonight for everyone, and when we're on the broadcast tonight, I'll be dipping out early, but we'll have some Texas people that are on the broadcast tonight because we're live streaming tonight on the Charlie Kirk channels about evaluating the returns.
If Paxton wins by five or more points against Cornyn, but still has to go to a runoff, but if it's five or more points, that spells doomsday for Cornyn.
They should stop spending all the money.
They've already spent $100 million on this man, and they haven't been able to get him within five points.
That's it.
Now, if it's less than five points for Paxton, that's a problem because they're going to keep spending.
Yeah, and that's a huge, huge pivot point, right?
So are the outside groups, the NRSC, because if you watch Fox News or anything, by the way, all the senators get on and they say, we need Cornyn, right?
And that makes sense.
It's their colleague and that sort of thing, but it's also NRSC money that's coming in, which could be spent on other races.
And SLF.
Yep.
The Senate leadership fund.
And so, you know, there's a couple of other important races that are happening.
John Bonk, who's running also a good conservative, 221.
Likely, he's going to be a really good representative in Texas.
Obviously, you have Congressman Brandon, he's a Brandon Gill type.
So Brandon Gill has endorsed him.
So if you like Congressman Brandon Gill, again, he's probably one of the most in-your-face, Freedom Caucus-esque Congressman.
John Bonk is one of those guys.
Another good guy that's running is Jace Yarbrough.
Jace is in a really tough primary.
Chip Roy's Run for Comptroller00:02:48
Again, because Texas has this runoff role.
This is Congressional District 32.
Another similar young guy, great family, who's going to be an incredible representation of that.
A couple other statewides that are really important.
A couple other statewides that are really important.
You have Don Huffins.
That's running for comp troller.
Don Huffins, if you remember, Rand against Abbott a few years ago, he's been a great supporter of turning points for a long, long time.
He got pummeled by Abbott and actually had resources and money.
Got pummeled by Abbott, but stuck in there.
He was one of the best liberty-minded members of the legislature for many, many years.
He was kind of the face of the opposition to the establishment for a while.
He was big on abolishing property tax, if I remember.
Don has been the face of anti-establishment activity in Texas for the last 15, 20 years minimum.
His whole family has.
They've put all of their resources against the establishment at great cost to them.
And he's still in this.
He's in this thing.
He could win comptroller with over 50%.
I have bad news for you, Tyler.
Today's a great day for you to learn.
It's usually just pronounced controller, even though they throw that P in there for no reason.
Oh, it's Controller.
I don't know why.
What about Dumb?
What about the Chip Roy race?
I'll take it.
I'll take that.
What about Chip Roy?
You have Chip Roy.
Chip Roy is in, so you have this race right now.
And everybody's talking about the Attorney General's race.
There are three major players that you see in this race.
You have Chip Roy, and then you have the gentleman that was endorsed by Ken Paxton.
And then you have, his name's Aaron Reitz, and then you have another guy named Mays Middleton.
Mays has been described, he's going out and saying a lot of pro-Trump things, but he's been described as being friendly with the Trump associate.
I'm sorry, not Trump, with the Bush, the bad Bush side of the state of Texas.
And, you know, Chip has been on the Freedom Caucus, supported by the Freedom Fund, all of that.
And then you have, again, Aaron, who's been endorsed by Ken.
All the polling is showing that this race is coming down to between Maze and Chip Roy.
Yeah, it's going to be a nail biter.
So, so, you know, now, the likelihood is it's still going to go to runoff.
But the fact is, is that it's likely that Chip is your greatest competition to Maze.
We like Chip a lot more because of his background with the Freedom Caucus.
He's been the champion for the Save Act, and that's really important.
Yep.
And good on the border as well.
Exposing Trafficking Secrets00:13:49
Yep.
I think nutrition has gotten way too complicated.
It seems like every week there's a new powder, a new lab-created formula, some new breakthrough.
But the truth, and we've been told this since we were kids, is to eat your fruit and vegetables.
Nobody really explained why.
When you eat whole foods, you're getting phytonutrients, those natural compounds your body uses to adjust, repair, and respond every single day.
That's not hype.
That's just how we were designed.
That's why I take Balance of Nature.
They use a tailored vacuum-cold process that stabilizes the phytonutrition in fruits and vegetables.
I'll say that again.
The tailored vacuum-cold process that stabilizes the phytonutrition in fruits and vegetables.
So you're getting real whole food nutrition, not synthetic substitutes.
Their whole health system includes fruits and veggies plus fiber and spice, 47 ingredients in one simple routine.
I take it myself.
If you want to fight the good fight, P-H-Y-T, go to balanceofnature.com to subscribe and save today.
Join hundreds of thousands of customers in one simple routine that's changing the world.
Go to balanceofnature.com to subscribe.
Ana Paulina Luna joins us now.
Congresswoman, welcome back to the show.
You had a very interesting, let's just say, time with the Clintons.
You were up in New York and you got to be in on that meeting.
We now have video clips from that.
Why don't you just take us inside the room and give us a sense of what it was like?
I mean, that's quite the pair you were discussing.
Yeah, it's not every day that you get to depose a former secretary and president.
But, you know, ultimately, our sole objective for this is getting justice for the victims.
And I think a lot of people, to include ourselves, have been rightfully frustrated because at a certain point, we were promised names.
We never received those names.
And then also there's this aspect of what we found out, what I really helped to uncover is that a lot of the co-conspirators that were given these plea deals were actually some of the women.
So these women engaged in what I would say is human rights abuses.
They were responsible for trafficking.
And then, also, too, you have a lot of the doctors and physicians that were essentially let off that kind of knew about what was happening.
So, there's clearly more to be investigated in this, but then also the aspect of, okay, well, how much did you know Epstein's circle of influence know about what was happening?
We saw that the Clintons, specifically with the secretary, you know, had a lot of connections there via the Clinton Foundation.
Although, according to her deposition and according to a lot of the statements made by President Clinton, she was somewhat insulated in, I guess, her direct contact.
But the president, President Bill Clinton specifically, did seem to acknowledge and admit that it was his relationship with Jeffrey to include Galeene that actually kind of is a reason why he should be brought in to testify.
And so it was very evident that Secretary Clinton did not want to be there.
She, as you saw in some of that footage, lost her temper a few times and was not so, I don't want to say nice, but just not as cooperative and they were very difficult to get in.
And then you saw kind of when President Clinton came in the next day, it was definitely kind of a shift.
He was a lot more, I guess, you know, a lot more forward in his answering.
And it did not appear that he was trying to hide the ball.
But as you also saw, there was a lot of questioning that, you know, even with the secretary, when we were posing questions, a lot of their communication between husband and wife is considered protected communication privilege.
So there's a lot that we could not have answered as well.
Well, and you know, it was just, I had to, I have to say, it was just a bit interesting.
I thought it was really interesting.
I think a lot of people had this experience watching these clips because you see President Clinton kind of still jovial.
You could still see all the elements that made him a really talented politician, but he's getting cast about the most salacious details about, you know, it felt very, it felt very 90s.
And as the joke was made, like, of course, we're bombing a country in the Middle East right now.
Of course, Bill Clinton is testifying.
Yeah.
Meanwhile, Hillary's like slamming tables like it's Benghazi all over again.
I mean, it was very interesting.
I, okay, I have to play this one because I just found it funny.
And I want to get your reaction for being in the room.
This had to make you at least somewhat uncomfortable, APL. 384.
I never saw anybody do anything wrong.
I thought they were flight attendants.
Do flight attendants typically wear tank tops and jeans?
They don't all wear uniforms on private planes.
Okay.
So there was a lot of this: like, who are you getting?
Why are you getting massages from young women?
Did you find that strange?
He's, you know, and then at one point, somebody shows him a picture of him with some young woman, and the lawyer tries to take it out of his hands, and he grabs it back.
And he's got this smirk on his face.
I'm going, dude, you're getting deposed by Congress right now.
You know, I don't know.
I just, I have to wonder what was that like to see a former sitting U.S. president being asked these types of questions.
Did it make you uncomfortable?
I mean, look, I straight up asked him about his trip to Africa, where we know that there was, you know, one of the victims on that flight.
And I should have asked him about Virginia Guffray's commentary about him going to the island.
And I, you know, when you're sitting there and obviously no one is above the law, but also to, you know, part of what I have, and it's become very evident and apparent.
And I even confronted both Secretary Clinton and President Clinton with the facts that Jeffrey Epstein was an intel asset.
I asked specifically with Secretary Clinton, which she said, you know, it's quite possible he was running a honeypot operation, which I think is very, very evident at this point.
But then, you know, kind of referencing, well, which countries would have a specific interest in, you know, figuring out what President Clinton was doing, right?
And I think just kind of the whole aspect of, you know, he, once I presented him with the alias and the, and the other identity that Epstein had, you know, he kind of saw that and you could tell that he was shocked.
But then also, too, it goes into kind of like an even more weirder space, I guess, because at one point, President Clinton was asked about, did he think that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself?
And he was like, well, I think he finally got caught.
I really don't know.
He was uncomfortable.
The attorneys didn't really want him to answer.
And then on the flip side, Secretary Clinton, when she was confronted with a similar question, she had said something along the lines of Jeffrey Epstein died in mysterious circumstances or mysteriously had died.
So I think the fact is, is that, you know, they see the writing on the wall.
He was obviously a very bad guy.
They also know that there's this aspect of Intel operation happening.
They would be prime targets.
You know, Bill Clinton, you can't tell me that, you know, he probably didn't fully know what was going on in the sense that, you know, those were kind of some younger girls, et cetera.
But also, too, I mean, at a certain point, did he, do we have any evidence right now that he did anything illegal?
And the answer is no, according to the deposition and according to, you know, at least the evidence that we have, that's not there.
But what was interesting is that the entire time that we were in that room, the Democrats were trying to, you know, basically come up with reasons to bring in and depose President Trump.
And at a certain point, President Clinton actually did exonerate President Trump, which they did not like and they freaked out about.
And then shortly thereafter, I actually also had asked President Trump about a woman who had made a false claim that he had sex tapes out there with some of the victims.
And I asked him, in so many words, would you want oversight to call in a victim like that or an alleged victim that had been proven to be lying?
And he said, no, you shouldn't be doing that.
And the reason I asked that specifically is because there has also been this attempt with the files to call in President Trump using false claims from people that were not credible witnesses or credible victims.
And so I think, you know, it was good that he came in.
Do I think that we're ever going to be able to get names directly from the Clintons or were we able to get names directly from the Clintons regarding people that were potentially involved in the trafficking?
No.
However, when I showed the secretary emails that were some of the most egregious emails that you guys probably all saw and read on the internet, and she read them, and then I said, Do you think that this person should be called?
And she said, yes.
Well, that individual who was writing those emails, that was a woman.
And so I am going to be pushing.
And I've already talked to Chairman Comer.
And I think there is support for bringing in the co-conspirators that were given lesser plea deals because they should have to answer for that in addition to some of the other individuals that knew and potentially were even treating these victims because they did not report the trafficking.
Yeah, that falls in line with a lot of Blake's thinking, actually.
You know, women were accomplices in this.
And that's a big part of how Jeffrey Epstein got these young women to be surrounding him and these other rich guys is they used Virginia Guffray as an example of that.
She lured in underage women, told them to wear makeup and act and lie about their age.
Totally.
But I think that there's also a big difference, though, between someone that's coaxed into doing something as a minor versus someone that continues to do it for years as an adult and is getting paid to do it.
And they are no longer co-conspirator, you know, victims.
They would then become co-conspirators and traffickers.
And so I think that that's a big difference.
And, you know, a lot of people for a long time, I think, don't really realize that we were promised names.
They said, when we interviewed some of the victims, they said, we will give you names.
And we have not yet received those names.
And so that's why I guess it's kind of frustrating.
And I understand that people have been failed by the justice system previously, but we are still trying to at least ensure that people, if they were trafficking, let's bring them in.
And we want to at least expose this.
And then it's up to the Department of Justice on whether or not they're going to prosecute.
But the fact is, is that this has become so politicized with the attempts to try to basically make it look like President Trump was trafficking people, which we know he's been exonerated by the victims, by multiple AGs, by literally President Bill Clinton.
And so it seems like some of it's being lost in translation.
But yeah, it was definitely, definitely quite the experience.
I did not expect Hillary Clinton to lose her cool like that.
And I was shocked.
There was a couple of times that she was kind of, you know, getting irritated being there.
Total 180 out from President Bill Clinton.
Well, APL, we've got Alliance of Sovereign Nations coming up.
Can you just quick elevator pitch on what it is, turning points working with you on it?
Tell us about it.
Yes, Turning Point Action has worked with us to stand up a first ever of its kind event focusing on nation.
I don't want to say nation building, but really ensuring that countries, specifically European nations, that have been so long told that, you know, we need censorship and you need open borders and you need to focus on green energy, really removing the backbone of these countries.
This is going to completely flip that on its head.
It's a more populist movement focusing on fundamental things like free speech, energy independence, i.e., nuclear energy, and strong immigration policy.
And so we have 75 countries from around the world that are in attendance and we're very happy for it.
It's become all the rage, all of our inquiries right now.
It's everywhere.
Yeah.
So many press want to be inside this room and we're being very much sticklers on who we let in because we want them to derail what is sure to be a really important event.
So congrats on putting that together.
It's becoming a really big deal.
And we'll have more to report on that soon.
Tyler's been helping you with that and a few others.
So Ana Palina Luna, thank you for giving us the update on the Clinton deposition.
Got much, much more to uncover there.
I'm sure you're going to keep on it.
Thanks for joining us today.
Thanks, guys.
Before he ever stepped behind a microphone, Charlie understood something important.
Leadership begins with learning.
He didn't chase a diploma or a title.
He chased truth.
Through Hillsdale College's free online courses, he studied the great works of the classics, the principles of the American founding, and the life-changing truths of the Bible.
Those ideas didn't just inform him.
They shaped his character, strengthened his convictions, and prepared him for the challenges ahead.
One of the courses he took was the Genesis story, taught by Hillsdale professor Dr. Justin Jackson.
This free online course explores the relationship between God and man, what happens when that relationship is broken, and the path toward reconciliation.
It's a real college course, rigorous, thoughtful, and accessible to anyone willing to learn.
You can take the very same course completely free.
Grow stronger in your faith, gain clarity about humanity and your place in the world.
Prepare yourself for a life with courage and conviction.
Visit charlieforhillsdale.com to enroll today.
That's charlieforhillsdale.com.
Learn deeply, lead boldly, carry it forward.
All right.
So a lot of you were asking for more clips, and I wanted to, but Congressman Ana Palina Luna was going through her experience in the room.
Photos And Laughter00:06:58
So let's, you hadn't even seen this clip.
This is Bill Clinton essentially, from his perspective at least, exonerating President Trump.
385.
The president never, this is 20-something years ago, never said anything to me to make me think he was involved in anything unproper with regard to Epstein either.
He just didn't.
That's the truth.
As I said earlier, the only conversation I have with President Trump about this was in the early 2000s.
And I have no information that he did anything wrong.
No information that President Trump did anything wrong.
I mean, by the way, the timing of that, I think, is telling.
Early 2000s, this is when they were still friends.
President Clinton was much younger than, much sooner, just leaving office.
And President Trump was not president yet.
He was considered a Democrat donor.
He was, you know, I think at Chelsea Clinton's wedding, right?
Anyway, so they had interactions.
So I think that's very telling.
This was a clip that I took note of, and I thought it was pretty comical.
And maybe I'm wrong for thinking that.
I don't know.
But a lot of people online certainly noticed it.
$4.57.
That's it.
Okay.
Mr. President, we have...
So I thought there would be more audio cues there.
He's literally laughing.
Dead laughing, but we don't really know what precisely he's laughing at.
Yeah, it was flipping through old Epstein photos of him smiling and nodding with, I mean, I find that he's still a dirty old man.
I find it unlikely that what was going on there is he was suddenly tipping his hand like, oh yeah, I remember abusing that person.
No, I think he's sort of laughing at the spectacle of the entire ordeal.
But a lot of people found it humorous online because those were apparently pictures.
I mean, many people think that he's laughing because, you know, what is out there, what he's looking at is far less egregious than what is not out there.
Yeah, it could be like a very real possibility to Is what we've seen over and over is there's a lot of salacious allegations that have come from they'll release a photo next to someone who's has their face blurred out and they're implying that this was someone they abused, that someone who was underage, and they're neither of those things.
Of course, yeah.
And so he might look at this photo and be like, oh, that's a 28-year-old person that I interacted with or something like that.
Sure.
Yeah, I mean, Interacted's putting it very.
It might literally just be that.
These are just all of these are just photos that people took.
Like, they're not secret photos.
They're not blackmail photos as far as we know.
They just seem to be any photo you might take like with your phone today if you're at a party.
I mean, certainly, Blake, a sitting president that leaves office and immediately is flying down with imagery that is being produced and put in front of him.
That's that's, that is not exactly, especially when we rewind back to the 90s, like I get today's 90s thing to me.
I was only 10 when the 90s well, you know what's okay, I don't think we know what.
No one, not even no one, was okay with any of this, like nobody has ever.
Like the fact that, like society has has been degraded into something where it's like oh, this isn't that big of a deal, and I get it totally jaded, everyone's jaded now whatever okay, at the time, at the time period, if those images would have come out, it would have been.
It would have been, it would have been, it would have been the most important thing on the news for three years.
Well, kind of like when Clinton had his uh intern, uh run in with Monica Lewinsky.
So this is funny.
I don't have the clip here and I just remembered it so I didn't call for it, but they were asking about, why do you hang out with all these young women?
He's like well I, that's wrong, I don't hang out with, I don't typically hang out with younger women and all this stuff, and they go.
Would you consider an intern young?
And he goes.
You can see his whole face is like well, you got me there, we're gonna live that one.
Then he goes.
Yes, interns are young.
Um, let me just play one from Hillary, because she's just got a vibe here.
386, when you saw photos of your husband in a hot tub, laying on a beach and getting massaged by other women and you knew that Jeffrey Epstein was involved in some of these trips and these things, did it concern you at all?
I'm here not to offer my opinions.
I'm here to answer specific questions To the best of my ability.
When you saw your husband in these photos of the young woman being massaged, what went through your mind?
I am not going to speculate.
I don't think that's speculation.
I think it's just that's a direct question: how did you feel about that?
I mean, legally, she's a smart gal.
She did the right thing, right?
Because they're trying to get salacious details and et cetera, et cetera.
But, anyways, yeah, she ended up, there was a whole photo leak situation with, I believe, Lauren Boebert, Congresswoman Lauren Boebert out of Colorado, leaked a picture.
They found out that she leaked it during the hearing.
She slammed her fists on the table, and it was quite the moment.
I believe we just about have it loaded up here.
But it literally, all of us turned and looked at each other and were like, that was Benghazi.
That was a total Benghazi moment.
Hillary Clinton has not changed.
You can take the woman out of Washington, but you can't take the Washington out of the woman.
New York, wherever.
Something like that.
Something like that.
It's a scary cross between Washington and Arkansas, is what it is.
It's steeped in power for years.
Scary cross.
All right, 458.
Excuse me, can I interrupt?
I have another photos that are being released of the secretary as she is testifying from inside this room.
Can you please advise me as to whether or not that's permissible and consistent with the rules, particularly given that we have asked for a public hearing?
If there are photos that are being released of the secretary as she is testifying, can you please explain how that is?
I'm done with this.
If you guys are doing that, I am done.
You can hold me in contempt from now until the cows come home.
This is just typical behavior.
Oh, for heaven.
So I would like to understand how that's permissible before the hearing was.
It doesn't matter.
We all are abiding by the same rules.
I will take that down.
Yeah.
I would like to take a break at this moment.
I'd like to have a dottish for now.
And on that note, we are done.
We'll see you tomorrow.
Oh, Hillary Clinton.
I don't want to feel bad for Hillary Clinton at that point there.