All Episodes
Previous Next
April 22, 2024 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec
49:02
EPISODE 719: THE TRIAL OF DONALD TRUMP HAS BEGUN

Here’s your Daily dose of Human Events with @JackPosobiecGo to https://www.BlackoutCoffee.com/POSO and use promo code POSO20 for 20% OFF your first order.To get $5000 of free silver on a qualifying purchase go https://www.protectwithposo.com with code POSOGet $200 off a 3-month supply kit from ‘My Patriot Supply’ when you go to https://www.preparewithposo.com.Support the Show.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I want to take a second to remind you to sign up for the Pozo Daily Brief.
It is completely free.
It'll be one email that's sent to you every day.
You can stop the endless scrolling, trying to find out what's going on in your world.
We will have this delivered directly to you, totally for free.
Go to humanevents.com slash Pozo.
Sign up today.
It's called the Pozo Daily Brief.
Read what I read for show prep.
You will not regret it.
humanevents.com slash Pozo.
Totally free.
the Pozo Daily Brief.
This is what happens when the fourth turning meets fifth generation warfare.
TikTok reiterates its free speech concerns over a bill that would ban the social media app in the U.S.
A bipartisan majority of the U.S.
House of Representatives on Saturday voted in favor of a measure that would ban TikTok in the country if its Chinese owner ByteDance did not sell its stake within a year.
Today, classes moved online for students at Columbia.
The university president saying they'll give the Ivy League school a chance to consider next steps.
Pro-Palestine protests have rocked the campus.
Last week, more than 100 people were arrested after the school asked police to remove student protesters.
This morning, Speaker Johnson's job in jeopardy after the House passed a series of crucial funding bills in a rare Saturday session.
The House will be in order.
Among them, $60 billion to war-torn Ukraine in its fight against Russia.
$26 billion for Israel in its war against Hamas.
And $8 billion to Taiwan.
But hardline Republicans say they feel betrayed, accusing Johnson of prioritizing helping Ukraine over funding for the southern border.
Uh, very grateful that Mike Johnson listened and came out, did the right thing.
Made his own decision.
Made his own decision.
Russia is issuing fresh warnings to the United States over its continued support for Ukraine.
Yesterday, the Kremlin ...said the Ukraine aid package that was passed by the House will turn into a quote, a loud and humiliating fiasco for United States such as Vietnam and Afghanistan.
... statements are underway in a New York City courtroom in the hush money trial of former president Donald Trump.
Former president saying once again the trial is election interference.
These are all Biden trials.
This is done as election interference.
Everybody knows it.
I'm here instead of being able to be in Pennsylvania and Georgia and Lots of other places campaigning.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's edition of Human Events Daily here live Washington, D.C.
Today is April 22nd, 2024.
Anno Domini.
The trial of Donald Trump, the president of the United States and the leading candidate to be the next president of the United States currently on trial.
The first time this has ever happened in U.S. history.
The first time and the only time that we've ever had a leading candidate on trial by the opposition party who's trying him.
And I tweeted this out earlier today during the trial itself.
And this is very clear.
The leader of this trial, the face of this trial, the man who gave the actual opening statement, because we weren't sure who exactly it would be from Bragg's office.
Yes.
A name that will be no stranger to the people of this audience.
Matthew Colangelo was chosen by Bragg by Bragg.
To deliver the opening statement in the Trump prosecution.
This is a direct signal that the case against Trump comes straight from the Biden administration.
Matthew Colangelo was a deputy of Merrick Garland.
Merrick Garland is The Department of Justice's Attorney General.
He's part of Biden's cabinet.
So Merrick Garland's former deputy is delivering the opening argument in the trial against Donald Trump in New York City at the city level, the municipal level, in the middle of an election year.
No.
No.
Cut the crap.
Cut the poppycock.
Okay?
This is a trial that comes directly from the top.
Biden saying this guy is going up too much in the polls.
I want him out.
I want him on ice throughout the key portion of the election.
Remember, the primaries were supposed to be Full in swing right now.
This was the establishment and Uniparty's initial plan.
The only problem was President Trump defeated their plan and beat the primary before the trial could get started.
Now, interestingly enough, Matthew Colangelo has accused Trump of election fraud.
This is what they're hanging the case on, election fraud.
The Democrats are putting Trump on trial for election fraud because they can claim, they want to claim, that the 2016 election was stolen.
That's what they've always believed, and they have the entire force of the state behind them.
So remember, you go to jail if you're an election denier for 2020, but President Trump, who won the free and fair election of 2016, is now on trial for election fraud.
They accuse you of that which they are doing themselves.
We've seen all of it.
We've seen it before.
We've never seen it at the stakes this high, and they're higher than ever, folks.
Stay tuned.
We'll be right back.
It tells a story of secrets and a mystery.
The hidden tales of the communist history.
Ladies and gentlemen, one of the best ways that you can support us here at Human Events and the work that we do is subscribing to us on our Rumble channel.
Make sure you're subscribed.
You hit the notifications so you'll never miss a clip.
You'll never miss a new live episode.
And we're putting them out every single day of the week.
But I got a hankering yearning deep inside for this book called Unhumans.
I just can't.
I just can't.
Tells a story All right, Chapter 7, we're back here, live, Human Events Daily.
Got a couple of questions for you folks.
How do you survive a communist apocalypse?
Well, you watch Human Events Daily every day.
Check.
Follow Posts ONX.
Check.
Pre-order Unhumans on Amazon.
Check.
There's one thing you're forgetting.
It can make the biggest difference in your future and your family's financial future, and that's checking out today's episode sponsor, Allegiance Gold.
Since 2020, Bidenomics has obliterated the American economy.
Imagine what four more years will do to interest rates, debt, and labor disputes.
You need something stable so that you can take a breath and know that the money you earn and the retirement you work for is safe.
You have to proactively protect your assets so that when the supply chains get rocked and Biden decides to print a few more trillion dollar bills, it won't impact your family's bottom line.
And the only way to do that is with one true beacon of stability that so many patriots use to preserve their wealth, and that, my friends, is gold.
Over the last five years, it's almost doubled in value, and the way things are looking, the sky is the limit.
Allegiance Gold has done things the right way from the beginning, so no coincidence that they've earned the highest trust ratings in the precious metals industry, five stars with TrustLink, and an A-plus with the Better Business Bureau.
Allegiance Gold can help protect your IRA or 401k with physical gold or silver, so you have it delivered securely to your doorstep.
Get up to $5,000 in free silver on a qualifying investment when you go to ProtectWithPosso.com.
Or call 844-577-POSO.
Don't risk your financial future betting against these forces.
Act today.
ProtectWithPoso.com.
That's ProtectWithPoso.com, 844-577-POSO.
Now, here was Trump's response, Trump's lawyer's response to Matthew Colangelo that I just described in the last segment here, the opening, my opening.
Trump's lawyers blasted Stormy Daniels and said that this was a scheme to extort a multi-billionaire who was running for president and that she and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, were blackmailing him into negotiating the settlement so that she would not spread false claims about him.
Now understand, the underlying activity that is said to have happened here happened all the way back in 2006.
It was 2006 when Trump met Stormy Daniels.
No one disagrees about that.
They do disagree about what happened.
This was a full decade before the 2016 election.
This is why Stormy Daniels and Avenatti waited so long to blackmail Trump.
And it was nearly two decades, of course, before today's day in trial.
Darren Beattie of Revolver News joins us now.
Darren, As we're looking at this, it's interesting that, you know, the people like the Maggie Habermans of the world and the Olivia Nuzzies are in there just on bated breath.
We got him!
We finally got him!
Talk to me, because I've been describing sort of the overall view and the outside view that I think there's a lot of people saying with everything going on in the world, this is, you know, this is what we're really going on.
But talk to me about the Maggie Haberman and Olivia Nuzzie fangirls out there who have been salivating over this for a decade?
Well, I guess they follow a long tradition of repulsive and, I guess in this case, ideologically disease-ridden groupies of a political sort.
And I say that with no insult to the actual musical groupies who I considered a substantial cut above this variety that we're speaking of now.
And you've seen various iterations of this.
You've seen it with there was a thing with Comey.
All of these like middle aged leftist hag types.
Fangirl over Comey.
You saw it, incidentally, with Avenatti, but I guess they've changed their tune because even Avenatti is from prison, basically expressing support for Trump and Trump's position.
So this is yet another kind of doomed obsession that really just plummets to a new level of pathetic display for these people and grating on their curve.
It's saying a lot.
How can, how many times can we remind ourselves how fundamentally stupid this whole procedure is?
How fundamentally stupid these charges are?
Even if the charges are true, which they're not, it's still stupid and irrelevant.
But on top of that, it's not even true.
It's not true across multiple dimensions of the case.
It's not, you know, the whole move to make it a felony, total farce.
The whole idea that the payments themselves should be illegal.
Are payments at all illegal?
Or should he have done it from the campaign funds?
Should he done it from private funds?
I mean, this point has been done to death, but no matter how he made the payment, they find some way to say, oh, you did it with campaign funds.
That's a violation.
You did it with private funds.
That's a violation.
My understanding is this had nothing to do with political concerns whatsoever.
It was all a personal thing.
So why shouldn't it be done with personal funds?
But, you know, I think because we do this to death, we want to find we want to get into the intricacies of the case.
And that's fine.
The intricacies are interesting in a way.
But we should never lose sight of the fact of how fundamentally stupid this is in the first place.
The idea that they're tying up a front runner for president, presumptive front runner, All the polls suggest he's going to be ahead of Biden.
He's certainly going to get the nomination and they're tying him up in this stupid kangaroo court process over something that nobody cares about.
And you say, well, the left cares about it.
They care about it because they hate Trump.
They don't care about it because there's any objective sense that the underlying charges are meaningful or substantial.
It's simply stupid.
And the fact that this is going on in the country for such a high stakes election in such a high stakes time reflects the fact that our country has become stupid.
It's an embarrassment to the whole country that this is happening in the first place.
And it's an embarrassment to us that we're in a position that we have to talk about it.
We can't not talk about it, but it still somehow diminishes us even to talk about it.
That's how dumb it is.
Well, Darren, I'll put it this way.
The fact of the matter is that this individual, Matthew Colangelo, who goes all the way from Merrick Garland's office, he's a deputy to Merrick Garland, and then takes this seeming demotion, right?
There's a massive pay cut.
Who's ever moved from the head of the Department of Justice, he's like a division head up there, all the way back down to the Manhattan Civil Court, Criminal Court, What lawyer worth his salt working his way up the ladder, which is the way they see it, would ever do such a thing?
No, it's very clear to me that what we're actually witnessing is a full mask-off moment of the machinations of the regime itself to go after the one man that they've been wanting to put in that defendant's box for over a decade at this point.
Absolutely.
And this, you know, unfortunately, it looks like this is just a new feature of the political campaign process.
Of course, it's going to remain asymmetrical.
It's hard to imagine, you know, Republicans doing it.
We don't have the lawfare infrastructure.
We don't have the killers in the legal field.
In fact, the conservative legal establishment, I hate to say it, they're the weakest of the whole bunch.
We think the congressional Republicans are weak.
We think the senators are weak, with precious few exceptions.
Wait till you see the people who are You know, conservative lawyers, even the people come up through the Federalist Society.
There are precious few exceptions to that.
This is the most risk averse and domesticated faction of the entire right.
And this is saying a lot.
And are we going to have a kind of commensurate response to this?
Of course not.
Not anytime soon.
And this is the new feature.
This is the precedent.
And of course it might not even be a precedent because Donald Trump might be the last guy who actually threatens the regime.
We'd be lucky if they tried again.
I'll throw it.
The commensurate response is you'll get like, you'll get one of these AGs to, and it's not commensurate, but the response we get is one of the Republican AGs will get like, like one email from Dr. Fauci that was sent four or five years ago and they'll say, Aha, we've caught them.
Look, we got his email.
Okay, Dr. Fauci has never faced any justice.
Dr. Fauci doesn't even have any law.
I said this to Dr. Drew.
I said, you care so much about Dr. Fauci.
How come nobody sued the guy personally?
You'll get like some email from him.
That was years ago.
It was powerful years ago when he was writing the email in secret.
Nobody, he's still walking away scot-free with all of his money, with all of his millions, with all of his stock portfolio.
And you're acting like this is some big win.
Like, oh, we've caught that.
I said the same thing to Elon Musk about the Twitter files.
It's great.
It's all well and good that we found out about how the powerful did their work behind the scenes years ago, but we're not doing anything to check their power now.
Two minutes, Darren Beaty.
Indeed.
And that reflects, I think, a general dynamic of the situation we're in is that we're actually in a time of maximum awareness.
I think over the course of the past three years, maybe four years, and I'll say thanks to Revolver, thanks to the great work you're doing and a handful of Others, the public largely knows not only the specific violations of the regime, but the general contours of our political landscape.
But it's one thing to be educated and aware, and it's another to have the will and the mechanism and the infrastructure to translate that knowledge into implementation, into an effective response to one's understanding of what's going on.
And in that dimension, we're woefully unprepared and behind.
And so we all kind of know all this horrible stuff going on, ridiculous stuff going on, corrupt stuff going on.
And, you know, we can talk about it.
And to some extent here or there at the periphery, we can do some things.
But there's nothing resembling this legal infrastructure that the left has that they're bringing to bear, the full weight of this legal infrastructure to bear in this election cycle.
This is the extracurricular approach to winning the election because they understand how disadvantaged they are from the electoral retail standpoint.
I've always said it's a two-pronged approach.
Lawfare plus ginning up the pro-choice base.
Um, abortion army, the abortion army is marching in lockstep with the therapy is exactly dialed in.
I want to know the truth what really went down.
So I'm jumping on my computer, going to preorder town.
Mystery tales I want to know the truth what really went down.
So I'm jumping on my computer going to pre-order town.
Pre-ordering live humans.
Can't wait to get my hands on that book.
Jack, we're still back here on live human events daily.
We're on with Darren Beattie getting his handicapping of the Trump trial and legal situation power dynamics in America today.
But folks, as we know, the world is in flames.
Bidenomics is a complete and total disaster, but it cannot and will not ruin my day.
Do you know why?
It's because I start my day with a hot America first cup of Blackout Coffee.
This coffee is 100% America.
Blackout Coffee 100% committed to conservative values and sourcing the beans to the roasting process.
Customer support and shipping.
They embody true American values and accept no compromise on taste or quality.
Look, I love this stuff.
The different flavors.
They're so good.
We get a little bit for each one.
My dad has been taking them.
He's been drinking all my Blackout Coffee.
So, I gotta go now to blackoutcoffee.com slash poso.
My dad's gotta go there.
And by the way, dad, you can use promo code poso20 for 20% off your first order.
Also, Mother's Day next month.
Never too soon to give your mom and those close to you the heart, close your heart, the gift of being awake, not woke with Blackout Coffee.
That's blackoutcoffee.com slash poso, blackoutcoffee.com slash poso, promo code poso20.
You know, Darren, You're talking about the legal infrastructure, and I point out that even in states like Georgia, where you've got the insane corruption of Fannie Willis, that Mike Roman, who is in his personal capacity a private investigator, his job is pulling up opposition research, he's a master of those dark arts, out of the Philly area, not that I would know anyone like that, and even then, the Republican
Attorney General of Georgia didn't move against Fannie Willis in the face of clear cut corruption.
So in some cases, it's a political dimension.
In some cases, it's a willingness or unwillingness to act.
But the fact of the matter remains that and I had somebody asked me over the weekend, they said, are there any, I said, are there any, any AGs out there with a pair of balls?
And I said, yeah, Letitia James, right?
Letitia James will just go all the way to the wall with everything.
But this is key, Darren, and I explain this for our viewers out there.
Why is it that when we see Democrats acting with impunity, the Republican response is so flaccid?
Well, I mean, it's a combination of things.
Will and infrastructure.
There's not a lot of will because a lot of conservative leaders and elected officials just happen to be weak people, not really in the fight, not playing for keeps, not operating at the highest stakes level of politics, playing for all the marbles.
That's manifestly true.
But also, you know, there are people, there are exceptions to that.
But there's minimal infrastructure to make this happen.
I was talking about sort of the conservative legal infrastructure that's coming out of the Federalist Society.
Of course, there are some wins there, but this is not a team of warriors.
There's not an elite team of conservative legal professionals who are capable of mounting a robust response to the lawfare assault that's been underway by the left.
Aggressively, so now for several years.
So the infrastructure part is another thing.
And the two go together with more infrastructure there is, I think the more people would be willing to step up.
But there's neither at the moment, infrastructure, properly understood, or a critical mass of people who are willing to step outside of the playpen and play the high stakes game that the left has been willing to play, and unfortunately, has been winning for quite some time.
Well, and I'll just throw one out there because, you know, we haven't talked about it as much yet, but it was over the weekend that Speaker Johnson, Speaker Johnson, the Christian nationalist, the hard right speaker that the New York Times assured us was Trump's pick all the way back in October of 2023.
So everybody remembers the story.
Kevin McCarthy was the speaker.
He gets the boot.
Mike Johnson comes in as this sort of consensus speaker.
And he promises us again and again that the Ukraine bill and the foreign aid bill and TikTok and all the rest of it will never be passed until the border is secured.
And then something magical happens, Darren.
He goes into the skiff and he receives The Intel briefing inside the SCIF, which I always have to laugh about because I spent so much of my career working in SCIFs.
Like, I've read all that stuff every day, eight hours a day, sometimes 14 hours a day, depending on the shift or whatever we're doing.
Well, I mean, it's not a huge surprise.
You know, you see pictures of Johnson.
to Damascus and comes out and says, you know, all those things I stood for were completely wrong.
And you know what?
Turns out the CIA was right all along.
Darren, what are we to make of such things?
Well, I mean, it's not a huge surprise.
You know, you see pictures of Johnson.
It's not a surprise that he's a weak pushover.
He looks the part.
He looks the part of a Republican elected official.
He's a GOP or he's a conservative.
He's, you know, he's a proud conservative and he probably stands for the Constitution, too.
You know, except when he goes in the skip, then he can forget about it for a moment.
But yeah, no, we've seen this archetype for a long time.
This was par for the course.
This is the default prior to Trump.
You want to know what politics looks like without Trump?
Study the face.
Study the weak, sad face of Michael Johnson.
OK, study that weak, sad face.
That's that's politics.
Without Trump, that's conservatism.
Without Trump, it is pathetic and it is hideously uncharismatic.
And it is inexcusably weak.
And so that's what we saw.
But again, I think we got to not get caught up in this pretense that he can be replaced by anyone.
Great.
Like I'm all for just punishing him and replacing him just because why not?
It's a display of some degree of power.
It's a gesture of some sort.
But these guys all suck.
They all suck.
You know, that's why people are saying, oh, you know, this shows all the people got rid of McCarthy.
They were misguided all along.
No, it was great getting rid of McCarthy because he sucked and he deserved to be punished a little bit.
But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that Johnson's going to be any better.
These people all suck.
That is the rule.
Don't get it twisted.
Don't delude yourselves.
Don't drink the Kool-Aid.
They all suck.
Over the weekend, my phone was burning up, actually yesterday specifically, over some of this, and I said, you know, this is what it is to me, right?
It's Johnson goes in, he gets skiffed, and we had Mike Benz on here on Friday, and we said he got blobbed.
And it's the same kind of idea.
But the real difference is, is that that is the norm, is that that's the norm.
We shouldn't be surprised.
The only reason that we are shocked at something like this is now.
Look at that face, look at that hair.
The hair, it reminds me, who is the Weekly Standard guy who has the same hair?
He's another idiot.
No, Stephen Hayes.
I think it's Stephen Hayes.
He has that same hair.
The swoosh is like the Nike swoosh.
Well, I guess I would say, though, is it's that starting in 2016 and really going all the way back to 2015, that's when Donald Trump showed up on the scene and he gave people a taste of what someone who was willing to simply say no is.
They got a taste of an actual serious populist candidate and then president who was willing to walk up to these people and say, I don't care about Afghanistan.
I don't care about these.
shall we say, not nice countries.
And we shouldn't be flooding our country with people from the not nice countries.
We should be asking for people from the nice countries.
And was willing to just kind of look these intel officials in the eye and say, you're full of crap.
And this isn't a court.
Now, and by the way, Barack Obama used to say stuff like this too.
Every once in a while, he would come, before he embarked on his drone strike campaigns, is that he would, in particular, in the Waziristan Valley of Pakistan, of which I know you're well acquainted, that he would say, this isn't in America's core interest.
It's in Russia's core interest.
Why should we bother with this?
Why should we bother with this?
Right?
And people would not think that Barack Obama and Donald Trump would have the same stance on certain things.
And there were these statements every once in a while.
Now, Obama largely outsourced his foreign policy to the likes of Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland and others.
But he did still say some things like this, which do kind of align with Trump, where it's simply that, I don't care.
the difference of course that obama went fully along with uh with the skiff briefing uh went along with the national security state and look chuck schumer warned us chuck schumer not only warned us he predicted what would have he told you point blank on rachel maddow all the way back in 2017 if you go after the intel community they've got six ways from sunday from coming back at you every single thing we've seen since then up to and to today right
Donald Trump being on trial is the opposite of what happens when you don't do what Mike Johnson just did.
But, you know, the sad and pathetic thing about all of this is, oh, you know, the intelligence community, yeah, they got Mike Johnson, you know, a gelding like Johnson, a nothing like Johnson.
To, you know, to imagine The Intel community feeling proud of controlling somebody that small, that insignificant, that weak.
What do they have to show for it?
They're getting all of these packages.
And of course, they're conferring fabulous wealth on Oligarchs in Ukraine and oligarchs in the United States and defense contractors in the United States.
But when you look at the chessboard, they're losing.
We just saw it in Niger.
Better be careful to pronounce that properly.
We just saw in Niger.
We're out.
Russia's in.
It's a huge scandal.
Nobody's talking about it.
I think Matt Gaetz is talking about it.
One of the only ones.
Huge strategic disadvantage.
In in Africa, and it looks like according to recent assessments, all this new money isn't going to fundamentally change the strategic situation in Ukraine and Russia's coming out ahead.
So I think the whole conflict with Russia, the whole proxy conflict is incredibly stupid and misguided, an incredible waste of money and so forth.
But if they're going to waste all the money.
At least win, and they can't even do that.
They can't outmaneuver somebody like Putin.
They can only outmaneuver Mike Johnson.
That's their competition at this point.
They're going to go into their offices today at Langley and say, wow, we beat Mike Johnson.
We must be James Bond, just like Hollywood tells us.
Just like Amazon Prime and John Kaczynski.
Quick break, right back to Eric.
I want to know the truth, what really went down.
So I'm jumping on my computer, going to pre-order town.
Pre-ordering Love, Human.
Can't wait to get my hands on that book.
We're going to dive into his pages.
Take a closer look.
From the Russian Revolution.
To the play red scale.
All right, Jack Posobiec.
Folks, I want to tell you real quick about today's episode.
Sponsor, my Patriots apply.
Just like that earthquake that shook the Northeast a couple of weeks ago, the attacks in the Middle East, the Salvo, Iran, and Israel is World War III on the brink.
Most emergencies, we know, they come without warning.
And when the next one comes, you won't have time to pack and prepare.
You need to get ready now before an emergency strikes.
Your supplies need to be ready to grab and go right away.
Secure those supplies at mypatriotsupply.com.
It starts with four-week emergency food kits from My Patriot Supply.
That's what my family did, helping millions of Americans prepare since 2008.
My Patriot Supplies are the experts in self-reliance.
Their four-week emergency food kit offers over 2,000 calories every day.
I want to go guys, do we have that footage out of the campus?
Do we have that?
25 years.
Sealed inside rugged-handled buckets.
They are made to grab quickly.
Go to mypatriotsupply.com and save $50 per kit.
They ship fast and free and unmarked boxes.
Save $50 a kit at mypatriotsupply.com, mypatriotsupply.com.
I want to go, guys.
Do we have that footage out of the campus?
Do we have that?
Because what we're seeing, folks, out of these campuses, Gaza camps operating all over the place, these new levels of it.
It's almost like a CHAZ meets BLM meets Occupy, but with a Gaza flavor kicking off.
Darren Beattie, you warned about the rise of these types of groups on campus recently, but you also warned at the same time that That there was a knee-jerk response to banning them outright that is actually very dangerous.
Walk us through what's going on because I think that what we're seeing right now with these, you know, with this with this Occupy movement in some cases sort of a renewed Gaza camp situation.
It's going to lead to renewed resurgence in support for those types of policies for banning them outright and a lot of pressure for administrators to do so.
Indeed, it does seem like some of the things we discussed in an earlier segment have come to pass here and even intensified.
And first of all, just looking at these things, I find it a repulsive spectacle.
There's something about, as I mentioned, the DNA of all sort of left-wing activism and mobilization.
It's really the same across the board, and you see it express itself in similar ways.
This is no Exception.
And justifiably, there is some movement and some energy on the right to pressure universities to address this.
And I think that pressure needs to observe a really critical distinction that we discussed before, and that is any kind of violent speech, threats, that means direct threats, not this stochastic terrorism Scam where someone feels uncomfortable that someone might act on the basis of offensive speech, direct threats, and of course, disruptive behavior.
There should be a zero tolerance policy for this across the board at universities.
And to the extent that there's leverage and interest and enthusiasm on the right to pressure universities in the wake of these resurgent protests, it should be singularly focused on that for the following reasons.
Again, disruption is part of the DNA of left-wing activist protests.
By adopting a zero-tolerance policy to disruption and violence, you're addressing the problem at its root, where the problem actually is.
That being said, what we want to avoid is what I think is the easy but ultimately counterproductive solution that you're seeing out of some quarters, which is simply to say we need to slap on additional speech codes in order to accommodate the sensitivities of Jewish students or pro-Israel students.
And this is, of course, misguided for obvious reasons.
First of all, we don't want to move in the direction of more speech restrictions.
But secondly, any kind of speech codes that are adopted will, of course, be used against what remaining conservative speech exists on campus, especially in a critical election year.
So it's just fundamentally misguided on a practical level.
And also, in principle, it's wrong because, again, if we believe anything we say about free speech and maximum accommodation of First Amendment protected speech, even if it's a campus speaker you don't like, What the what the left does, again, this is the DNA of it, is they disrupt when a conservative speaker goes there.
If it's Ann Coulter, or if it's Charles Murray, or if it's, you know, Charlie Kirk, or recently, I think there was a case of Rittenhouse.
No matter who it is, you go to campus, you're disrupted.
That's what should be clamped down on.
That's zero tolerance.
But of course, if these Palestinian activists, if they want to have their own speakers, if they're controversial and they're not interfering with other people, let them do it.
It's a university.
That should be allowed.
That's been what conservatives and free speech defenders have been saying for a long time.
So it would be a shame to succumb to a kind of short term oriented hypocrisy in order to adopt new speech codes that ultimately won't help the problem in the first place.
It's a simple distinction.
It is a critical distinction, and it's a distinction where we get all of the benefit of clamping down on the disruption, not only by these Palestinian activists, but by left-wing activists generally.
Because again, they all do this.
The BLM types do it.
They all do it.
How great would it be for universities to adopt a truly zero-tolerance policy?
If a conservative speaker is giving a talk and you disrupt it, automatic expulsion.
Wouldn't it be far better to have that than to embrace some kind of Pyrrhic victory in adopting a speech code so the Palestinians can invite whatever person they want to speak on their campus and similar such restrictions?
Okay, so walk me through this.
The idea is, and I get the first part, the idea is don't ban the group.
Say, just because a group has a belief that's controversial, that doesn't mean they should be banned under freedom of speech.
Got it.
But the second point you're talking about is ban disruptors.
That when someone comes up and is being disruptive, now that doesn't mean the entire group that they're associated with necessarily, but that person specifically, not just banned from participating in the event, but actually expel them from campus.
I would say yes and obviously you know in theory there would be some kind of judgment involved but in these cases that you see where there's like active harassment or let's say let's say there's a speaker who's giving a pro-Israel point of view and they go and they disrupt it so people can't hear the speech that kind of disruption that we've seen specifically impede the ability of conservatives to
reach an audience on campus that should face a zero tolerance policy anything resembling that and of course any violent speech but I need to qualify that by saying because these days people say oh you said something that offended me therefore I'm unsafe that is not the direction.
Your speech is violence, your speech is causing pain, your speech is causing harm.
Yeah some of these self-appointed spokespeople like Talia Khan, who's kind of leading the charge, positioning herself as the new Barry Weiss.
Some of the rhetoric coming from that direction seems like it's just a repeat of the same emotivism that we see from the left that does not serve our cause and our objectives well.
So as long as we keep the zero tolerance policy focused specifically on violent Threats and disruption.
I think we're going to be in very good shape and the leverage that exists now in so far as it exists to do something about the campus situation will be well used.
I think that's a genius way of putting it, because it's very simple, and it would be easy for so many people to come up here and say, yeah, ban that group, because they don't agree with me.
But then all of a sudden, what happens when the administrators turn around the next day and they say, oh, you're a member of Turning Point USA, or I see that you're subscribed to Human Events Daily, you're subscribed to Revolver News, you listen to The War Room.
How many times has this happened when there's been someone who bum-rushed the stage?
kirkos talking university and someone dares to come up and try to grab the microphone boom you're gone from the university for good that's a much better how many times has this happened when there's been someone who bum rushed the stage i've had it happen at events uh where someone's come up and tried to rush the stage
grab the mic run over any number of things going on by the way for years for years to conservatives and i i can appreciate that people are all of a sudden saying my goodness by jove it seems as though something's going on at the universities i don't I never noticed such a thing before, because it was only being done to those naughty, bad people, like those bad conservatives.
We'll be right back.
Another fascinating segment.
Darren Beatty right here on the break.
In the tales of the communist history.
I want to know the truth, what really went down.
So I'm jumping on my computer, going to pre-order town.
Far.
But I got a hankering, yearning deep inside.
For this book called Unhumans, I just can't hide.
It's a case that nobody wanted to bring, including Alvin Brad.
It was just at the last minute they decided to do it.
It's a case that, if you're looking back, it goes back many, many years.
2015, maybe before that.
And it's a case as to bookkeeping, which is a very minor thing in terms of the law, in terms of all the violent crime that's going on outside as we speak, right outside as we speak.
But this is a case where you pay a lawyer, He's a lawyer.
And they call it a legal expense.
That's the exact term they used.
Legal expense.
All right, there you have President Trump made the statement just outside the court today.
Court was adjourned early today in the Trump trial.
The first witness, I'm not even sure they're done with the witness yet, is David Pecker.
Who testified a little bit after noon, President Trump coming out and giving a statement.
Darren, I gotta tell you, though, we were just talking about how the Maggie Habermans and the Olivia Nuzzies, and I saw this clip, I guess over on MSNBC right now, Rachel Maddow is up.
Rachel Maddow was in the courtroom today of President Trump.
She gets out of there.
I mean, she looks flustered.
It looked like she was buttoning her shirt up a little bit, the way she was standing.
Her shirt's kind of unbuttoned.
And she's saying, I was there.
I saw him come into the courtroom.
He sat down.
He was looking thinner.
He was looking older.
He was looking frustrated.
You know, and she's just, she's flustered.
She had an emotional response.
Darren, walk me through this because this is something where, you know, these people that, you know, kind of outside of, you know, sort of our sphere of, you know, political sociomedia spectrum, you know, there is this other sliver of the Rachel Maddows who exist in this there is this other sliver of the Rachel Maddows who exist in this universe where Donald Trump is like
But it's also kind of like a, how should I say this, something that they think about later in the wee hours of the evening at the same time that clearly you're seeing exhibited by Ms. Maddow right there.
What's going on, man?
Well, again, a pathetic spectacle, a sad excuse for a groupie movement that expresses itself in this political domain.
Again, we've seen it with Comey and Fauci and these other just disgusting figures who have managed to amass a still more disgusting following.
And in this case, it doesn't get any worse than NATO.
I mean, Maddow's whole career is an example of what happens when you fail your audition for Victor Victoria.
So what more can be said about Maddow other than I guess she's feeling the thrill up her leg that Chris Matthews notoriously did with Obama.
But I think it's a good sign.
It's a positive indicator because every time these Maddow types start to get excited, their deepest longings end up Being frustrated, and I think that will be the case in this instance as well for I think this will be an example where something fundamentally in this stupid in this country does not actually succeed.
And that's kind of my little note of optimism there.
Yeah, I'm really hoping that this is going to be one of those times where, you know, it's like I remember there was a moment, I'll put it this way, it's like addicts refer to this as a moment of clarity, where on MSNBC, the great, the wise and great and just wisdom endowed individual Ari Melber had Michael Avenatti, who, of course, is the biggest part of the trial, who isn't going to be there because he's currently behind bars, the former lawyer to Stormy Daniels, while this was going on.
He comes out and calls into Ari Melber last week on MSNBC, and it starts dumping all over the case.
It says, Ari, you guys should never have brought this case.
You should not be celebrating this.
This is a complete loser.
It makes us all look terrible.
It maybe made sense years ago.
It's beyond the statute of limitations, and it's certainly not election fraud.
So when you've even got the likes of Michael Avenatti, Coming forward and telling MSNBC that they need to turn down the self-engorgement over this.
You know, Darren, is that a good sign that people in the middle or that people on the right actually could have some opening here to take the upper hand?
I think it's a good sign.
And again, the Avenatti issue shows that Um, you know, maybe he's looking at the polls, maybe he's looking at the direction the race is going, and this is sort of his Preemptive plea for a pardon.
Indicating that he has maybe a better political judgment than a lot of people, including Rachel Maddow, given that his expectation is Trump is going to be back in the White House or there's a good chance of that happening.
But yeah, I think that this is the wrong.
I would be a little bit more concerned maybe If the thing going on were the January 6 case, because I think people might be more easily duped by it, it at least superficially carries more gravitas.
Whereas I think a case like this is something that anyone who bothers to look into it, or even casually hears about it, understands how stupid the charges are, how trivial it is, how petty it actually is.
And I think people are frankly embarrassed by it and they should be as should the country be embarrassed that this trial is going on.
Couldn't be more embarrassed to be an American right now.
I'll simply put it that way because of the way our government is acting because of the way that you have this very obviously a an official who was like five minutes ago serving in the Biden administration is now delivering the opening argument.
No, I'm sorry.
This isn't a case of NYPD blue.
This isn't law and order.
OK, those are all TV shows.
This is the real world.
And in the real world, it is the left that has primacy among the legal infrastructure of America.
Last minute to you, Darren Beattie.
Absolutely, that's the case.
And as I was saying in other segment, the reason that we can't respond in kind, it's a matter of will.
It's a matter of infrastructure.
We need to build up a lawfare infrastructure of legal killers who are willing and capable of doing a tit-for-tat here.
And if that's going to be the new reality, at least it needs to be on both sides, because I don't see this stopping unless politics after Trump is just a stooge that's so compliant it's not even worth using these extracurricular tactics against.
Really, uh, really interesting way to refer to Mike Johnson there, Darren Beatty.
▲
Export Selection