Trump Officials Pledge INSANE CRACKDOWN On Free Speech!
The Trump administration has responded to the assassination of Charlie Kirk by threatening a sweeping crackdown on political opponents under the guise of targeting “hate speech.” Trump advisor Stephen Miller and Attorney General Pam Bondi both signaled that the federal government would aggressively pursue groups accused of doxing, protests, or hate speech, sparking fears of a First Amendment crisis. Guest hosts Russell Dobular and Keaton Weiss of the Due Dissidence show argue that Miller’s rhetoric represents a fascist-style campaign to suppress dissent, while Bondi’s blunt comments drew backlash even from many of her fellow conservatives. The segment highlights free speech concerns raised by figures like Tucker Carlson and Ro Khanna, warning that chaos and censorship ultimately strengthen authoritarian power rather than protect democracy. Plus segments on the FBI’s highly dubious “evidence” against alleged Charlie Kirk shooter Tyler Robinson and the myriad right-wing commentators offering support for the idea that Kirk was turning against Israel.
Come see me on tour in Hermosa Beat, Sacramento, San Francisco.
Go to jimmydoor.com for a link for tickets.
This is from Common Dreams.
Hiding behind Kirk, Team Trump launches biggest assault on First Amendment in modern U.S. history.
U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration have been signaling that they are planning to use the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk as a justification to launch a broad campaign targeting their political opponents.
Trump advisor Stephen Miller on Monday singled out left-wing organizations that he baselessly alleged were promoting violence in the United States.
And he said that the full weight of the federal government would soon come down on them.
Let's take a look at that.
You know what emotions I'm feeling right now, and this is something people say.
I mean, you kind of know the answer.
There's incredible sadness, but there's incredible anger.
And the thing about anger is that unfocused anger or blind rage is not a productive emotion.
But focused anger, righteous anger, directed for a just cause, is one of the most important agents of change in human history.
Trouble showed that.
Amen.
And we are going to channel all of the anger that we have over the organized campaign that led to this assassination to uproot and dismantle these terrorist networks.
So let me explain a little bit what that means.
So the organized doxing campaigns, the organized riots, the organized street violence, the organized campaigns of dehumanization, vilification, posting people's addresses, combining that with messaging that's designed to trigger incite violence in the actual organized cells that carry out and facilitate the violence, it is a vast domestic terror movement.
And with God is my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people.
It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie's name.
Thank you, Stephen.
Don't go away.
I'll be joined by a guest of...
Alright, so...
So that is even more dangerous than Pam Bondi's crack pottery about locking up Home Depot copy workers.
That's nuts.
And unlike Pam Bondi's comments, which were so cartoonish that it got a lot of pushback from conservatives, this is getting embraced.
And this is arguably more dangerous than what Pam Bandi said.
What he is describing is a fascist crackdown on political opponents.
And it's always under this guise.
They're a threat.
They're the violent ones.
They're the threatening ones.
We have to dismantle them.
Now, I personally don't think you should be allowed to dox people on any side.
So what they need to do is go and look at the list that Turning Points USA keeps of academics, because many of those academics have been doxed, threatened with violence, cases of women, often threatened with sexual violence, threatened with deletion.
But you know they're not going to do that.
It's not as if they're going to say, you know what, this doxing thing, this is an evil, a unique evil of the internet age, and the law hasn't caught up with it.
It's wrong for people to have their personal information released that way, and we're going to make that illegal.
I would actually support that if you did that without regard to ideology.
This is a pretext, especially coming from Stephen Miller, who in a cast of psychopaths stands out as a particularly deranged product of the Trump administration.
So moving along, shortly after this, Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared on the podcast hosted by Miller's wife, Katie Miller.
And this woman sleeps with that man.
She deserves a podcast for that alone.
And vowed that the Justice Department would go after people who engage in hate speech against conservatives.
And then there's hate speech.
And there is no, there's free speech and then there's hate speech.
And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie in our society.
Do you see more law enforcement going after these groups who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people so we show them that some action is better than no action?
We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything.
And that's across the aisle.
Yeah, she's another product of the just great meritocratic system that elevated people to this administration.
Her primary job there seems to be to play white woman grievance and shock and horror and always to warble her voice a little like she's on the verge of tears.
For an attorney general to have so little understanding of the law and the constitution that they would say something like that, as Matt Walsh, among others, has pointed out, she should be immediately fired.
She is a liability even to the agenda to suppress speech that this administration has because she's too stupid to code it the way Stephen Miller did.
What Stephen Miller did, again, is far more dangerous, but she got a lot more backlash because that is just such a dumb thing to say, especially with a conservative movement that because of the left's own excesses, I shouldn't even say the left, the liberal class, the Democrats' excesses, created an opportunity for them to present themselves as champions of free speech.
Now, seeing the right go full censorship, well, now we're back on familiar ground.
For my entire life, that's part of what was so crazy about cancel culture.
The left had been pretty united in supporting the idea that it's dangerous to start going after people for speech because that could be turned against you.
The ACLU famously defended the right of Nazis to march through a very Jewish area, skokie, that had a lot of Holocaust survivors.
And, you know, folks at the ACLU are not known for their right-wing politics.
That was a unifying principle.
With the rise of cancel culture, it gave certain figures on the right the opportunity to posture as champions of free speech.
This is really a reversion to form for the right.
This is the right that I knew throughout my life.
They're an authoritarian movement by definition.
So it's not surprising that now that they feel they've won the culture wars, they've gone back to being their old selves.
While many prominent conservatives denounced Bondi's remarks, which they did, not Miller's, Bondi's, many embraced Miller's, and reiterated that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Trump himself appeared to give her views his endorsement.
When asked by ABC News reporter Jonathan Carl about Bondi's comments on Tuesday, the president signaled that he would favor prosecuting journalists on hate speech charges.
Let's see what he said.
And what do you think?
Cam Bondi thinks she's going to go after hate speech.
Is that, I mean, a lot of people, a lot of your allies say hate speech is free speech.
She'll probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly.
It's, hey, you have a lot of hate in your heart.
Maybe I come after ABC.
Well, ABC paid me $16 million recently for a form of hate speech, right?
Your company paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech.
So maybe they'll have to go after you.
Look, we want everything to be fair.
It hasn't been fair.
And the radical left has done tremendous damage to the country.
But we're fixing it.
We have right now the hottest country anywhere in the world.
And remember, one year ago, our country was dead.
And now Washington DC is fixed.
And I fix it.
The mayor was just fine.
Okay.
The mayor had to sick city for many years.
He's been mayor for many years.
The one that fixed it was me and my people.
And it is so safe.
You should take your beautiful wife tonight and have dinner down there.
You won't be shot.
You won't be accosted.
You won't even be looked at incorrectly by anybody.
Washington, D.C. is safe.
Now we're going to be pretty rough, to put it mildly.
And then we're going to have to go.
A friend of mine who is a your wife's not Latina, right?
Because then she might get detained by ice for a couple days.
But if she's a citizen, don't worry.
They'll release her eventually.
It's going to get a lot of weird looks after that.
Yeah.
ABC paid him off, which is a disgrace.
It's not because they were guilty of anything.
They're bribing him.
They're paying them off in order to go about their business.
What's $60 million for ABC?
Yeah.
Same with getting rid of Kimmel.
But to have the president of the United States start calling critical coverage hate speech.
I mean, now you're fully into Banana Republic territory.
And this is particularly rich given that the MAGA movement was so built around the idea that the left are hysterical ninnies who can't have an open debate or can't take words on the more pseudo-intellectual intellectual dark web level.
They saw this as themselves defending the noble tradition of open debate and open inquiry, defending the West, defending Western civilization.
So are they going to come out and exoriate him for this as they should?
I don't think so.
So here is RoCanna responding to these developments.
The Trump administration initiated the biggest assault on the First Amendment in our country's modern history.
Listen for yourself to Vice President Vance, Stephen Miller, and Attorney General Pam Bondi.
But you have a role too.
Civil society, Charlie understood this well, is not just something that flows from the government.
It flows from each and every one of us.
It flows from all of us.
So when you see someone celebrating Charlie's murder, call them out in hell.
Call their employer.
It's a vast domestic terror movement.
And with God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people.
It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie's name.
We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything.
And that's across the aisle.
This is the time where every American must stand proudly for free speech and our freedom.
Now, if you want to say, well, where the fuck was he when these people were running around firing people for speech at universities, firing random working people who might have been completely misinterpreted or even said something that the liberal class didn't like?
Where was Rocana?
I agree with you 100%.
100%.
The whole time we had a show, I was speaking out against that.
And I was warning that this was going to happen.
That, what do you think you're going to be in power forever?
What do you think they're going to do now that you have set this precedent of this being inbounds?
That does not mean that anyone who was an honest actor speaking out against those tactics should now say, well, see, no, the shoe's on the other foot.
No, Conna is right.
Maybe he should have spoken out about that before.
I never saw him do that.
Maybe there's some hypocrisy there.
Absolutely, but he's not wrong.
All of us who are honestly defenders of speech, and I think most people do believe in that principle, need to speak up.
Conservatives more than anybody else, because they don't care what we say, right?
We're not on their team.
People who are on the team need to speak up at this moment.
Representative Ilhan Omar, who has become the target of a censure resolution by Representative Nancy Mace amid false claims that she did not condemn the Kirk assassination, hit back at Republicans for being hypocrites on free speech.
Quote, Nancy Mace is trying to censure me over comments I never said.
Her resolution does not contain a single quote from me because she couldn't find any.
Unlike her, I have routinely condemned political violence, no matter the political ideology.
This is all an attempt to push a false story so she can fundraise and boost her run for governor.
Yep.
So Pam Bondi got such pushback from their own base that she felt a need to clarify and really she walked it back.
She did not argue what she had argued on on Katie Miller's podcast.
She went on to argue things that everyone would agree should be illegal.
You can't threaten Congress.
You can't SWAT people.
That's not what she was talking about.
So this is how she closed out that tweet.
Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is not protected by the First Amendment.
It's a crime.
For far too long, we've watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence.
That era is over.
And she got community noted on that.
The U.S. Constitution protects most violent speech.
The Supreme Court ruled it legal to justify or celebrate violence or advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety of it, but not incitement to imminent violence, e.g.
telling a mob with weapons to kill someone.
Clearly, if the standard that she's laying out here were applicable, pretty much every Malcolm X speech would be illegal.
You wouldn't be able to listen to it.
How much political speech argues for revolutionary violence, right?
If that were illegal, think about how much of the discourse would be illegal, right?
That is why they ruled that way.
But you can't say, go kill that guy.
Imminent.
So do you want to say anything before we go on?
No, no.
Go ahead.
All right.
So Tucker actually responded to Pam Bondi.
There's free speech and then there's hate speech.
This is the Attorney General of the United States, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States telling you that there is this other category called hate speech.
And of course, the implication is that's a crime.
There's almost no sentence that Charlie Kirk, and I'm not running the risk of appropriating his memory for my own ends by saying this.
It's provable.
There's no sentence that Charlie Kirk would have objected to more than that.
And you've got to think the Attorney General didn't think it through and was not attempting to desecrate the memory of the person she was purporting to celebrate, that she just threw that out there, that she hadn't thought about it.
You hope that.
You hope that Charlie Kirk's death won't be used by a group we now call bad actors to create a society that was the opposite of the one he worked to build.
You hope that.
You hope that a year from now, the turmoil we're seeing in the aftermath of his murder won't be leveraged to bring hate speech laws to this country.
And trust me, if it is, if that does happen, there is never a more justified moment for civil disobedience than that ever.
And there never will be.
Because if they can tell you what to say, they're telling you what to think.
There is nothing they can't do to you because they don't consider you human.
They don't believe you have a soul.
A human being with a soul, a free man, has a right to say what he believes, not to hurt other people, but to express his views.
And by the way, that thinking, and not to pile on the attorney general, who's a very nice person, but that thinking that she just articulated on camera there is exactly what got us to a place where some huge and horrifying percentage of young people think it's okay to shoot people you disagree with, to kill Nazis for saying things they don't like.
Why do they believe that?
How did we get here?
Is it the video games?
Is it the SSRIs?
Yeah, probably.
But what it really is is 12 and then 16 years of indoctrination in our schools at the hands of people who tell them that, who say exactly what the Attorney General just said.
Well, there's free speech, which of course we all acknowledge is important, so-so important.
But then there's this thing called hate speech.
Hate speech, of course, is any speech that the people in power hate, but they don't define it that way.
They define it as speech that hurts people, speech that is tantamount to violence.
And we punish violence, don't we?
Of course we do.
They've been taught that every year of their lives.
And so naturally, most of them believe it.
When Charlie Kirk is shot in the throat with a 30 out 6 on camera, I doubt very many young Americans want to see something like that or actually applaud the death of a man, a father, a husband.
But they've been told for their entire lives in schools exactly what Pam Bondi just told them.
Well, there's free speech, but then there's also hate speech.
And woe to those who engage in it because it's a crime.
Very, very well said by Tucker Carlson.
And to his point, Charlie Kirk, hate speech does not exist legally in America.
There's ugly speech, there's gross speech, there's evil speech, and all of it is protected by the First Amendment.
Keep America free.
Now, hey, we have our disagreements with Tucker Carlson.
We also have our agreements with Tucker Carlson.
He's done some important work and he has inserted himself into the conversation very often in a way that has helped to steer conservatives, I would say, in the right direction.
As here, that is very important for somebody with his platform and the level of influence he has to make that connection to that audience.
Because again, they're not going to listen to us.
They need people like Tucker Carlson to say, hey, you know how we've all been speaking out about the way kids are getting indoctrinated to equate speech with violence?
Well, that's exactly what she just said.
And we don't support that.
Because if you're going to stop this momentum, it's going to be because people like Tucker Carlson, who have a lot of influence in those corridors, spoke out against it.
And, you know, he can personally call Trump and say, hey, this is not right.
That's who you need making this case.
Yeah, I agree with that 100%.
I think it's a great point that he made.
And I think it is very important that people, everybody, especially people who have the president's phone number, to appeal to reason.
Appeal to reason.
This has been something I've been saying all week.
And I know I have upset some people who, you know, want me to rah, rah, rah, resist, fight back.
You have to appeal to reason in this moment because that is the only chance of pulling back from the brink.
It is.
You have to appeal to people's sense of reason and humanity and decency and hope that that wins the day.
And if that doesn't win the day, well, then that's because we were too far gone to begin with, right?
Because if you can't win on those grounds, then you lost before you even tried, right?
At that point, well, this just wasn't salvageable.
But if you actually want to salvage what is left of the civil society, which I think is very important because what the accelerationists among us don't realize is that, and this is something I'm glad to be able to say this on this show because this is something that Jimmy says a lot.
And as often is the case, he's ahead of the curve.
Chaos favors the establishment.
Chaos favors those who have the power and the resources to rebuild society in their image after chaos has destroyed it.
So if you want to pull back from the brink and save what's left of the First Amendment, save what's left of civil society, everyone must appeal to reason, decency, and humanity, which means do not pop off at the mouth with reckless takes about this.
Yes, you have the right to.
Yes, I oppose people threatening you if you speak your mind.
Of course, I'm giving you advice here.
I'm giving you advice here.
Be reasonable, be decent, and appeal to a common sense of humanity, which most people share.
If Tucker Carlson is saying this, that means that what he's saying is resonating.
It is.
He is an influential person.
He made perfect sense there.
And, you know, even Barack Obama gave a statement today.
It was the first good thing he said since before he became president, in my view, which is, yes, you should be like, yes, criticizing the legacy of Charlie Kirk is totally inbounds and people should not cower in fear of doing that, right?
You have to be able to, you know, give an honest assessment of what you think his legacy is.
That's your right to do.
Tucker would agree based on what he just said that that is your right to do.
And yes, do you have a legal constitutional right to go further than that?
Sure, you do.
Is it smart to pop off recklessly on TikTok in this moment?
No, it's not.
No, it's not.
And that's not, that's not being fearful.
That's being strategic.
You know, in getting in doing this, you know, in getting to do this for a living, we meet a lot of people who are very successful activists who have done really great work in their communities and really empowered ordinary people in very material ways.
I haven't seen it.
And I'm not going to name who they are because I don't even want to put them on the spot and make them feel like they're a pussy if they don't say something.
You know, I don't want to give them that headache.
I haven't seen one of them mouth off about this.
Not one of them.
You know why?
Because they know that doing so is going to undermine the work that they do.
I'm not saying hide.
I'm not saying cower.
I'm not saying give up.
I'm saying keep your fucking head, keep your head and appeal to people's sense of reason, decency, and humanity.
And if there is enough reason, decency, and humanity left in this country, then we will pull through.
If there isn't, we will not.
But if you have to bet in one direction, I think that's the only bet to make because to bet against that is to concede defeat, right?
It's a surrender.
It's a surrender in and of itself to accept that we are so far gone that the only thing we can do in a moment like this is eat each other.
Yeah, I mean, why do you think Elon Musk is telling people in fucking England, another country he's not from that he wants to interfere in?
Whether you want violence or not, it's coming for you.
You fight or you die.
That is, I mean, if that's not an incitement to violence, what is it?
Why do you think he's doing that?
Because chaos favors his interests.
He wants violent clashes in the streets so that people like him can build their techno-feudal dystopia where they don't need people like the people in that march.
They're trying to get them to cut their own throats as the rich always do.
Yep, absolutely.
Hey, you know, here's another great way you can help support the show is you become a premium member.
We give you a couple of hours of premium bonus content every week, and it's a great way to help support the show.
You can do it by going to jimmydork.com, clicking on join premium.
It's the most affordable premium program in the business, and it's a great way to help put your thumb back in the eye of the bastards.
Thanks for everybody who was already a premium member.
And if you haven't, you're missing out.
We give you lots of bonus content.
Thanks for your support.
The FBI is hard at work gathering evidence, gathering evidence in the tragic shooting of Charlie Kirk.
So here is Cash Battelle coming on Fox News to say that the shooter left the note, even though we didn't leave a note that we found, but we were able to forensically deduce what the contents of this note that doesn't exist anymore was.
So let's say easy to follow, right?
Let's see.
I'm sure he could put it much better since he's a professional.
A written note before the assassination attempt.
That's what the governor said yesterday.
And what did that say if you could say?
So what I'm able to say.
I'm sorry.
So what I'm able to say is I addressed it partially earlier is that the written note we believe did exist.
And we have evidence to show what was in that note, which is, and I'm going to summarize basically saying the suspect wrote a note saying, I have the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I'm going to take it.
That note was written before the shooting.
Evidence of its existence, we now have learned existed before the shooting was in the location in the suspect and partner's home.
But we have since learned that the note, even though it has been destroyed, we have found forensic evidence of the note and we have confirmed what that note says because of our aggressive interview posture at the FBI.
Aggressive.
We've confirmed what this note says, even though it's been destroyed.
We've seen forensic evidence.
What is forensic evidence of a note?
What?
A pen?
Is that forensic evidence of a note?
And we've determined what it said through, what did he say?
An aggressive interview posture?
The note says because of our aggressive interview posture at the FBI.
So for those wondering.
I can't use enhanced interrogation anymore.
Everyone knows what that means.
Everybody knows what that means.
So aggressive interview posture at the FBI.
Now, for those who don't know what that means, the FBI has released informational videos about what they mean by aggressive interview posture.
So here's a brief clip of that.
Simple part, dude.
I grabbed one of them, beat it out of him.
That's what they mean by aggressive interview posture, folks.
One more time in case you missed it.
That's a simple part, dude.
I grabbed one of them, beat it out of him.
Yeah.
So that's what we're just fucking insane.
So friend of the show, Jimmy Dore, has a take on this, which I endorse.
Pure clown show.
Get this.
The shooter wrote a note that said he was going to take out Charlie Kirk, but the note was destroyed.
But trust the FBI, because they say that's what the note says.
Seriously, so cartoonish that you can't make this stuff up.
No, you can't make this stuff up.
You cannot make this stuff up.
So now they have released purported text exchange between Kirk's alleged assassin and the trans boyfriend.
All right.
So the Utah County DA just dictated to a press conference that is purportedly the full text message exchange between Charlie Kirk's assassin and his transgender boyfriend roommate shortly after the alleged assassin committed the murder.
Note the needless use of modifiers and elaborations, which I, the author, highlighted in bold.
These formulations remind me of composition students struggling with his tendency to wordiness and not a 22-year-old boy texting on his phone while trying to grab the rifle he just used to commit an assassination.
The texter also seems to go out of his way to include incriminating details that are far beyond the scope of letting his lover know he'll be home soon.
So here's the transcript.
Drop what you're doing.
Look under my keyboard.
The roommate says, you are joking, right?
Robinson, I'm still okay, my love.
Shouldn't be long until I can come home, but I got to grab my rifle still.
To be honest, I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age.
I am sorry to involve you.
Roommate, you weren't the one who did it, right?
Robinson, I am.
I am.
I'm sorry.
Roommate, I thought they caught the person.
Robinson, no, they grabbed some crazy old dude who was since arrested for child images, shall we say?
That's not suspicious at all.
Then interrogated someone in similar clothing.
I had planned to grab my rifle from my drop point shortly after, but most of that side of town got locked down.
It's quiet, almost enough to get out, but there's one vehicle lingering.
Why?
Why did I do it?
I had enough of his hatred.
Some hate can't be negotiated.
And he's texting all this while he's trying to get away, right?
I mean, that's what we're supposed to believe.
If I am to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence.
Going to attempt to retrieve it again.
Hopefully, they have moved on.
I haven't seen anything about them finding it.
Roommate, how long have you been planning this?
Robinson, a bit over a week, I believe.
I can get close to it, but there is a squad car parked right by it.
I think they already swept that spot, but I don't want to chance it.
I'm wishing I had circled back and grabbed it as soon as I got to my vehicle.
Look at all of this text.
I'm worried about it.
They lift this from Wuthering Heights.
I mean, it's like it's in this elevated pro style.
Yeah.
Nobody would write this.
Who texted this?
Who texts this?
Like a 20-year-old, much less a 22-year-old.
Who's like trying to get away with it?
Yeah, who's on the run?
I'm worried what my old man would do if I didn't bring back grandpa's rifle.
I-D-E-K, I don't even know, I'm assuming, if it had a serial number, but it wouldn't trace to me.
I worry about Prince.
I had to leave it in a bush where I changed outfits.
So that is exposition.
So, as an aspiring playwright and screenwriter in my old days or my youth, one thing that the mark of, yeah, like Ben Shapiro, one thing is that's the mark of bad fiction is when you go out of your way to reveal exposition inorganically.
Yeah.
Right?
Like, for example, you don't want the character to say, you know, you know, oh, let's go to McDonald's.
That was the first job that I had before I went to high school when I was 14 because it's inorganic revealing exposure.
Nobody would do that.
Right.
No one just reads, no one just narrates their life casually in conversation.
So, where I changed outfits, I might have to abandon it and hope they don't find Prince.
How the F will I explain losing it to my old man?
Only thing I left was the rifle wrapped in a towel.
Remember how he was engraving bullets?
The effing messages are mostly a big scheme.
If I see no meme, big, mostly a big meme, sorry.
If I see notice bulge UWU on Fox News, I might have a stroke.
All right, I'm going to have to leave it.
That really effing sucks.
Judging from today, I'd say grandpa's gun does just fine.
IDK.
I think that was a $2K scope.
Delete this exchange.
My dad wants photos of the rifle.
So if you're telling to delete the exchange, it means you're cognizant of the possibility that this is going to wind up as evidence.
No, like if you're telling me to delete the exchange, my dad wants photos of the rifle.
He says grandpa wants to know who has what.
The feds released a photo of the rifle and it is very unique.
He's calling me right now, not answering.
Since Trump got into office, my dad has been pretty die-hard MAGA.
I'm going to turn myself in willingly.
One of my neighbors here is a deputy for the sheriff.
Again, you are all I worry about, love.
Don't take any interviews or make any comments.
If any police ask you questions, ask for a lawyer and stay silent.
If, I mean, look, if his lover is all he's worried about, why is he implicating her or whatever in the crime to begin with?
If you're going to turn yourself in, why not leave your lover out of it if you don't want to, if you don't want to create problems for them?
That's not to say that people who commit a crime like this think all this through logically, but this is what they got.
This is what they got.
And the story is that, what, he shoved the rifle in his pants to get on the roof.
As Kim Iverson points out, those pants were skin tight.
You got to hide a gun.
How would you do that?
How would you like it's just yeah, I mean, there's this is where I come back to it's the it's the Oliver Stone JFK principle.
You might be able to debate certain aspects.
You know, some people have said the hand signals, people made too much out of that.
Whatever, man.
Do you believe this account of the story?
This account of the story is impossible.
So now you've established they're lying.
Now you have to start to ask why.
That we can all agree on whatever.
Maybe this detail or that detail taken as a whole.
Look at this.
Nobody would write this.
Nobody would write this.
It's impossible.
Look at the style.
And if there are any people that are so intrinsically incompetent that they would try to pass this off as a legitimate exchange, it's crazy eyes Patel and company.
Yeah.
This totally unnecessary and needlessly detailed confession by text message is what one would expect to see in the climactic why did you do it scene or film noir convention.
The following example from the Maltese Falcon, though, in this case, Bogey's why did you do it delivery is angry instead of tender and distraught.
So Will Adams says the FBI is fabricating fake text now.
I'm Gen Z and this isn't how we talk.
If Biden's FBI tried this, he'd be impeached by sunset.
But when it's Trump's crew, we're just supposed to shrug.
No, this is bullshit and should be a national scandal.
Enough with the double standards.
This is how the text messages of the Robinson guys sounds.
Barack, good morning, Michelle, my wife.
Michelle, hello, Obama.
Yes, exactly.
Revealing the exposition.
Hey, FBI, my parents don't believe me.
Can you please tell them I studied last weekend?
Here are my texts to prove it.
Hey, hello, my friend.
So do you remember last weekend when we were studying physics?
Yes, we were studying physics last weekend.
It was very studious of us.
Exactly.
Not even AI is buying the supposed Tyler Robinson text messages to the supposed lover.
You expect me to believe that he allegedly just finished an assassination full of adrenaline and in a panic would text a novella to his lover right after giving us convenient plot points.
That's right.
So Grock doesn't even buy it here.
Based on what's shown in your screenshots, the content itself, the Robinson roommate transcript is extremely detailed, full of incriminating admissions and conveniently structured like a script.
So yeah, we don't have to read that whole thing, but you get the picture.
Thank goodness that Robinson left a string of text messages that completely corroborate everything the FBI told us 48 hours earlier.
And if you look on Twitter, you'll see, you know, just as Pam Bondi was roundly, you know, denounced by even people within MAGA for the just foot and mouth nature of the, you know, hate speech versus free speech.
And then we're going to prosecute office depot workers for not printing flyers and things like that.
You know, you've seen a lot on the MAGA side of things.
Steve Bannon saying he's suspicious of the text message.
Matt Walsh was saying he was suspicious of the text exchange.
So, yeah, I mean, look, this is already an FBI and a DOJ that MAGA itself, the MAGA coalition, had grown very suspicious of, given their handling of the Epstein files.
And so they don't have a lot of goodwill in the bank with the base.
And of course, this is not helping.
This is not helping at all.
This seems like an insult to the intelligence of the people, but I guess it's one they think they can get away with.
They're just going to stick to this narrative no matter what.
And hey, look, when it comes to the murder, look, Donald Trump's politics were never my politics.
I never voted for Donald Trump.
I never voted against Donald Trump.
I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton.
I didn't vote for Joe Biden.
I didn't vote for Kamala Harris.
So, like, if this is a crime committed by a leftist, no matter who did it, I would denounce it just as loudly.
I would disavow it and condemn it just as loudly, no matter who did it, no matter the motive.
So, like, I'm not trying to spin this in any particular direction.
What I'm saying is, based on what we see here, the narrative that they insist that this was, you know, leftist ideology and that it was motivated in that way.
I'm just not convinced of that based on the fact that they're not producing what strikes even Steve Bannon as credible evidence, even Roger Stone as credible evidence.
You know, he says, you know, a lot of these questions remain unanswered.
And the fact that, yes, you do have what looks like a group of very angry, powerful people who had reason to be mad at Charlie Kirk, which suggests a broader conspiracy, suggests it, does not prove it, of course.
But yeah, the more we learn about this, the worse it looks.
The day you walked into my office, I knew it was going to end this way.
Right.
Yeah, seriously.
Yeah.
I always hated Charlie.
I always hated him.
I smiled at him, but I secretly harbored Felix.
Yeah, no, it's an insult to their own supporters that they are not making more of an effort at this cover-up.
And as one of those tweets pointed out, how much of a double standard are you going to apply?
Because yes, if this happened, can you imagine if this happened under the Biden administration and they released that and tried to pass that off as a real exchange from the killer?
Yeah, no, the fact.
And I don't know if this is still true.
Supposedly, he hadn't seen a lawyer in the first 48 hours.
The whole thing just stinks.
The whole thing doesn't add up.
And nobody, the fact that they claimed he stuck the gun in his pants.
But then, okay, even if you accept that, why would he put it back together and leave it in the woods like that?
Like, this is a classic kind of MK Ultra operation.
I'm sorry.
We got into that a little bit on Katie's show last night.
We actually, on this show, interviewed the author of Chaos, Tom O'Neill.
And, you know, he basically made a very good case that their claim that MK Ultra didn't work is a lie.
And he shows the receipts, man.
He found the files where Jolly West and other people who were involved in it claim that it was a success.
This was in forgotten boxes and files in the basement of universities.
So, okay, if you take that evidence as real, and I do.
He's going back to the 50s and 60s.
They figured out how to program people for assassination.
The Butler thing is very strange.
This is very strange.
It looks like he was set up as a Patsy.
And if you look at the way this is going, and if you look at past history, you know, I don't wish this for him.
It would not surprise me at all if he conveniently self-deletes.
Yeah, it's a very, very troubling pattern of information that we're looking at here.
I mean, who buys that?
Who buys?
Like, this is what you're putting out there as evidence?
I mean, come on.
Come on.
I mean, it's just like, it just gets stranger and stranger and stranger.
One by one, you know, personality after personality have been coming out and responding to the horrific and tragic murder of Charlie Kirk.
And last night, Tucker Carlson went live with a sort of rotating panel of guests, and he did not disappoint for those expecting intrigue.
So first, let's just back this up a little bit.
Of course, Benjamin Netanyahu had been tweeting out support for Charlie Kirk at a suspiciously rapid pace, if I'm to be honest, since just moments after he was shot.
So here he is on the 13th.
Charlie Kirk was a true friend of Israel.
Rest in peace.
And here is another tweet summarizing multiple sources.
So according to multiple reports, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered Charlie Kirk's TPUSA $150 million in cash to adopt an even more ardently pro-Israel stance.
Well, that's even more than he gave to Hamas, I think.
$150, $150 million in cash.
Kirk refused the money.
So yes, this has been reported widely, including, of course, by our friend Max Blumenthal, who wrote an article with his wife Banya Parrampil detailing that story, which we covered in previous broadcasts here.
So this catches us up to last night where Tucker Carlson indeed confirms Charlie Kirk did not like Bibi Netanyahu.
And he also goes on to say he was appalled by what was happening in Gaza.
Let's take a look.
Netanyahu said that to me many times.
He did not like Bibi Netanyahu.
He said that to me many times, and he said to people around him many times.
He felt that Bibi Netanyahu was a very destructive force.
He was appalled by what was happening in Gaza.
He was above all resentful that he believed Netanyahu was using the United States to prosecute his wars for the benefit of his country and that it was shameful and embarrassing and bad for the United States.
And he resented it.
Didn't hate Netanyahu.
He wasn't out there with a placard saying that, but he certainly expressed that to me and a lot of other people.
And there's no question that Bibi's defenders on the internet will call me a liar or a kook, but that's a fact.
And enough text messages exist that I think it can probably be verified in pretty short order.
Not that it needs to be, because that is true.
Yeah, I believe that is true.
And yes, you've seen a chorus of the usual suspects come out and attest that they are lying.
But of course, you know, Tucker is not the only one saying this.
And here you have some peers in the space backing him up, and not just peers in the space, but as we'll get to, some others whose word may carry more weight to some people than his fellow commentators, right?
But here's Candace Owens.
Tucker Carlson just exposed everything Charlie was going through with his Jewish donors and what his true feelings were toward Bibi Netanyahu.
Watch to comprehend how sinister the lies are the Zionist crowd is trying to tell right now.
Messages exist.
Stop lying.
Matt Gates.
I have personal knowledge as to many of the claims Tucker is making here.
They are 100% true.
Roger Stone backs this up, quote tweeting Matt Gates.
Roger Stone, a staunch ally of Donald Trump.
Roger Stone, to me, has absolutely zero, zero reason to lie about this.
Like this is a guy who, like, you can't really say he's clout chasing.
Like, he's an ally of the president.
There's no reason he would say this if it were not true, right?
You want to make the worst assumption about Candace Owens?
All right, fair enough.
I don't make that assumption about Candace Owens.
But when it comes from Roger Stone, what reason does he have to lie?
Well, he needs this headache to go and vouch for this.
I don't think he'd be saying this if it weren't true.
I have personal firsthand knowledge that everything Matt Gates and Tucker Carlson are saying is true because Charlie Kirk told me.
Okay, there you go.
Charlie was both a public and private advocate for my clemency when I was framed in the Russian collusion hoax, which I agree.
That was a setup.
We became close and he provided me with spiritual advice during a crucial time in my life.
I believe the questions surrounding his death remain unsolved.
Okay.
So once again, a guy like Roger Stone has every incentive in the world to total party line.
He has no incentive at all to put himself out there and do this.
Neither does Marjorie Taylor Greene, for that matter.
So if you don't believe Roger Stone, take a look at Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Charlie Kirk invited me to speak at America Fest a few weeks ago before he was martyred.
This was after I called for AIPAC to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act and said that the nuclear arms secular government of Israel was committing genocide in Gaza and killing innocent children, Christians, and people.
He asked if I wanted to debate about APAC, but I made it clear, not made it clear, but Charlie made it clear, right?
Thank you.
Not against him.
He said, we, him, TPUSA, would do whatever I want on the issue.
If you don't know who to believe, between Bibi Netanyahu, a foreign country's leader, or Charlie's personal friends, Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, I'm posting my last text message with Charlie, believe Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson.
And there you have the receipts.
So who do you believe?
Do you believe Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Roger Stone, who again doesn't need this?
Marjorie Taylor Green, who again doesn't need this?
Or do you believe the Zionist usual suspects who do nothing but lie all the time?
I mean, come on, this is open and shut.
Now, this is not to say that Israel killed him, but as I've made this point on our previous show and on however many shows have been on this week, I lost count.
Whether they did this or not, To me, the benefit of looking into this with the suspicion that they have earned by carrying out assassinations around the world, making movies about the assassinations that they've carried out around the world,
um, and the fact that there were these contentious meetings between Charlie Kirk and these pro-Israel backers, uh, and compounded by the fact that I'm sorry, as we'll get into in the next segment, the official story makes no sense whatsoever.
Um, what you're going to see here, what is already being revealed here, uh, whether or not they actually did the crime, is that the more you hear about these meetings about Bill Ackman sitting Charlie Kirk down, and then that British woman, Natasha, whatever her name is, uh, Douglas Murray's friend, screaming at him at the party about what a terrible person he was for platforming anti-Israel voices.
What's coming to light here is how manufactured support for Israel in this country actually is, how it's really top-down manipulation, it's not organic support.
The fact that they had to sit down this young man and browbeat him into bending the knee to them, apparently unsuccessfully, um, shows you that uh support for Israel in this country is not organic, it's not bottom-up, it's manufactured, and it makes perfect sense that it's manufactured.
So, you know, people want to say, Well, you have no evidence that they did it, we have no evidence that they did it.
We have a timeline that stinks, quite frankly.
We have an official story that stinks just as bad.
But whether or not they did it, there's still value in looking into these meetings because it's an insight into just how viciously they go after anyone who forget about dissent.
I don't know if you could really call Charlie Kirk a dissenter quite yet, but he was starting to give time to dissenting views, and that warranted this just extreme, vicious, nasty reaction from these people.
And so that is coming to light.
And there's no doubt.
I mean, Tucker is tuned into this conversation.
He knows what's going on.
When he comes out and says that, it strikes me as a deliberate and much appreciated attempt to validate a lot of what people are saying.
And so good on him for doing it.
Yeah, Nick Sorter, who I give a lot of credit to because I'm sure that made a lot of people unhappy.
He exposed a few of his fellow people in the space as taking what was really a pretty small amount of money to challenge RFK's Maha agenda around sugar, sight unseen.
And he exposed all the paperwork and the messages they had gotten and them agreeing to just take up to $1,000.
That was top to go out and present sugar as a freedom issue.
You should be able to have your sugar.
And Nick Sorter came out and exposed that.
And he actually tweeted today: a lot of people are pay P A Y triots, patriots.
And he's absolutely right.
You know, I mean, I would say, based on the Soda Gate, he's probably an honest actor.
And that's certainly been my experience.
A lot of people don't realize that a lot of people in the space are just another type of influencer running an influence business.
No different than people who run travel log Instagrams, people who run food Instagrams, people who run unboxing Instagrams.
These are people who, you know, chances are they were more interested in politics than the average person.
But very quickly, it's a very competitive space.
It's not 2011 where it was really the sky's the limit.
There weren't a lot of people who had gotten into it yet.
Now, yeah, you know, these people, you go backstage at these kinds of events like Rescue the Republic.
And yeah, you got your, you know, big figures like Russell Bran.
And then you got a lot of little minnows floating around who are hoping that they're going to make the right connections and get boosted.
These kind of people who were there with Bill Ackman, like what was that guy's name?
Do Russo?
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
These people are just bottom feeders, man.
They're just happy to be there.
They're just happy to be invited to the party and they are for sale.
I would say, and I'm not saying this is just a right media thing.
We just saw the whole story that Taylor Lorenz did about all these people.
It's the whole space.
It's the whole space.
Like, I would say when you're talking about high-profile, very visible people, I'd say at least 80% of them are getting money that they're not disclosing that you don't know about.
And in this particular space, a lot of them are getting money from APAC and from Israel.
You know, we're going to be doing a story about Destiny later.
I don't know that he gets money from them.
I'd be damn surprised if he doesn't.
A lot of these people are bought and paid for.
Exposing that is causing a lot of problems for a lot of people.
And that's why you're seeing so many of them, including that one.
Do Russo put out a denial.
They're all putting out, they're all going full Bill Ackman.
They're all doing these war and peace Twitter things that all sound very similar.
I think Bill Ackman might be writing all of the responses because they're all kind of have his captivating literary style.
Yeah.
They're really fascinating stuff.
He figures he'll bore people into not being interested anymore.
But yeah, no, it definitely feels like they all got their story straight.
The guy who went on Megan Kelly is not a guy who had like a nice little meeting.
And Bill Ackman put out showing after that meeting that they had an exchange of, oh, yeah, I'll see you in New York.
That doesn't prove anything.
Oh, really?
Charlie Kirk didn't tell one of the biggest donors in the space to go fuck himself.
Oh, wow.
Wow.
They had to exchange afterwards.
So that proved that they didn't.
That proves nothing happened.
Nothing happened.
A guy who built up an organization like this from nothing has political skills.
I can't believe it.
Yeah.
And if you got nothing to hide, if you don't have a guilty conscience, why not just say, yeah, we got into it a little bit.
You know, I didn't like the direction he was going.
I told him and we had an argument and that was that, right?
Like that in itself is not suspicious if you just own it.
Why you got to go to great lengths to disguise the nature of that meeting?
It's just like, you know, I mean, I'll say this.
No development makes this look better.
Every development makes it look worse.
Yep.
Right.
And so, you know, that's all we could really say.
But I think it's something worth looking at if for no other reason, if nothing else comes of it, but to expose the influence operation that these people run.
Right.
The fact that they had to browbeat this guy is a story in and of itself if they're guilty of nothing else.
I feel like this is a turning point in a lot of things.
We'll get into the freedom of speech thing on the other side.
That's a very dark side of what this is a turning point in.
The way the Trump administration is using it as a pretext for a full-on assault on First Amendment rights and rights to organize.
But the positive side of it, this is a very big turning point in the Israeli influence campaign.
You can feel it.
Like they really, whether they were behind it or not, they lost the conservative movement.
They already had under the surface.
Now it's exploding into open view.
Look what happened with Matt Walsh.
I was talking about that a little earlier.
Matt Walsh is really trying to hit the, oh, this is trans ideology angle.
His own followers are not buying it.
His own followers are calling him a shill for pushing that.
Hey, become a premium member.
Go to JimmyDoorComedy.com.
Sign up.
It's the most affordable premium program in the business.
All the voices performed today are by the one and only the inimitable Mike McRae.
He can be found at MikeMcRae.com.
That's it for this week.
You be the best you can be, and I'll keep being me.
