April 27, 2024 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec
01:06:32
THOUGHTCRIME Ep. 42 — Lawfare in Arizona? Was the A-Bomb Evil?
In this week’s ThoughtCrime, Charlie Kirk, Jack Posobiec, Andrew Kolvet, and Blake Neff discuss the latest authoritarian lawfare operation by the left, which aims to imprison ThoughtCrime's own Tyler Bowyer for serving as a Trump elector in 2020. Then, they have a deep discussion of Tucker Carlson's interview with Joe Rogan, and the most interesting question to come out of it: Was America's use of the A-Bomb in World War 2 evil?THOUGHTCRIME streams LIVE exclusively on Rumble, every Thursday n...
DNSA specifically targets the communications of everyone.
They're collecting your communications.
Okay, everybody.
Happy Thought Crime Thursday.
Today...
You know who I am.
Blake is back with us in person.
He has healed himself thanks to the Wellness Company.
We have producer Andrew Remote, and Jack is in the most interesting place.
Jack, are you in Hungary?
That is true.
I am in Budapest, Hungary right now, believe it or not.
I'm told that there's an event happening.
What are you doing in Hungary?
It's the annual CPAC Hungary.
We've been doing them for about three years now.
It's actually where Orban comes out and gives us all our marching orders for the year and tells us this is how we're going to fight George Soros on every continent so that he won't be able to get in anywhere.
Obviously, in the United States, we have a lot of work to do.
Do you feel safe walking the streets of Budapest at night?
I mean, is it a relatively safe city?
Is that a joke?
I mean, no, I mean, I'm saying like American cities aren't safe.
So it's, are you kidding me?
Like, like Tanya and I were out last night with, um, with some friends and I mean, you can walk across the city.
I've, I've, I've done it so many times here in Budapest, my, my fourth or fifth time here.
And I mean, it's, it's completely safe.
Um, you have, you will have no issue.
I mean, it's a city, right?
You don't mean there's cars and stuff.
But in terms of crime, in terms of the violence that you see, it doesn't exist here.
It is not part of this world in any way.
Comment from London Mayor.
No, terrorism is part and parcel of living in a big city.
No, it's not.
Actually, it's not true.
It's a choice.
It is a choice that you can choose away from and you can decide between cities and high trust societies and have law and order.
And it's very simple.
And it turns out that people actually really enjoy countries like this and people are actually happy and families are.
By the way, Carly, you'd appreciate the thing that mainly about Budapest is not so much the safety.
It's the fact that there are playgrounds.
Everywhere in this city.
Huge initiative by the government.
So you see playgrounds everywhere.
I'm talking like literally every street, every block has got a playground on it.
And then you just see giant families walking around everywhere.
Like four kids, five kids, six kids.
Every time you turn around, there's another one.
So, uh, let's get into it.
This is the Big Arizona News.
Blake, what is going on here?
You have a lot of thoughts on this particular topic.
I did a whole hour on it, so.
Oh yeah, I'm gonna come and glute really quick, just because we mentioned the crime thing.
Budapest has 1.7 million people.
Number of murders it had in 2020, that's the most recent year I can see, 13.
Are you kidding me?
And they're probably all like domestic disputes.
Yeah, exactly.
And then, 13 murders.
Unbelievable.
My hometown of Sioux Falls once had 19 murders in a year.
Are you serious?
Yeah.
It's that big?
2020 was really bad.
Wow.
A lot of domestic disputes.
Indeed, indeed.
Anyway, first topic, of course.
Yes.
Our good friend, Tyler Boyer, our ThoughtCrime co-host.
Yeah, who is not here right now.
Who is not here right now.
He's talking to lawyers.
Hey guys, why isn't Tyler here?
The man is coming after our man, Tyler.
That's right.
Is he coming later?
I don't think he's coming later.
He has lots of lawyer meetings.
And if he were trying to go to Budapest, I think he'd be stopped at the airport.
So, Blake, what's going on here?
This is now national news.
Break it down for us.
Alright, as you said, we live with it this morning, talked about it for a whole hour.
We encourage all of you to go watch that episode.
What's going on is we've already had several of these criminal cases in other states where they have targeted people connected with Trump's presidential campaign in 2020 and also people who served as alternative electoral college slates in 2020.
So they've done this in Nevada, they've done it in Michigan, they've done it to some but not all of the electors in Georgia as part of the Fulton County case.
Now they're doing it here in Arizona.
So yesterday, Attorney General Mays, who was elected by, what, 280 votes officially?
Yeah, elected.
She has a big mandate, so she's gone mad with power now.
And she brought charges against 18 people.
Seven of them were members of Trump's team.
That includes Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, Boris Epstein, a few other people.
And then also the 11 people who were Trump's electors in the 2020 election.
That includes our friend Tyler.
And the claim is really outrageous.
There's a set of charges.
I've got the indictment in front of me.
Some of these charges are fraudulent schemes and artifices.
Forgery, tampering with a public record, and presentment of false instrument for filing, among other joyous possible crimes that are alleged.
And all of this is because they acted as alternative electors in 2020.
And as we explained this morning and as we explained on Twitter yesterday, it's just, everything about this is truly just cataclysmically insane and deranged and evil.
I'm just going to be blunt about this.
Because the claim of forgery, here's the deal.
In Arizona, in December of 2020, they had certified that Joe Biden was the winner of the state, but Donald Trump's campaign was pursuing various lawsuits, legal endings.
They were pending legal challenges.
Yeah, they were challenging this.
They were making a case, we have arguments that we can make, not everything is exhausted.
But, but, what was widely believed within the Trump camp, but also by many Democrats was, The Electoral College convenes on this one date in December.
I believe it was the 16th or 19th.
Yeah.
Yeah, I think it was the 19th and they're like, well, they're going to convene and they have to cast their votes then and it was widely believed that due to the Electoral Count Act and the Constitution how they interact that you had to have electoral votes cast on that date or there was just there was no remedy so they could have later determined oh actually trump won the state and he would have you should have gotten electoral votes and they would say well you didn't have an electoral college Slate convened to cast the ballots on the 19th.
Congress can't accept them.
At most they could reject the Biden ones, but you couldn't cast them for Trump.
And so the thought was, well, we need to have people convene to cast these electoral votes so that if it later is decided in favor of Trump, we'll be able to do this.
That was transparently what this was for.
This is what they said it was for.
They all did it publicly.
They said this is what they were doing it for.
And there is precedent for this!
1960, Nixon versus Kennedy.
On election night, Nixon wins the state of Hawaii.
They certify it for Nixon, but they're disputing it.
It's very close.
He wins it by a hundred and some votes.
They dispute it.
They say, actually, we think Kennedy won.
So the Democrats, they meet in December and they say, they sign a sheet of paper.
The Hawaiian electors.
The Hawaiian electors.
You know what would be funny?
Let's go get, let's see if we can find a picture of them.
Yeah.
I don't know if we have the electors, I can find a picture of the actual thing they signed, and it's almost the exact same wording.
In fact, I literally think the Arizona electors copied the wording from them.
Absolutely.
Where they say, we, the duly elected electors of the state of Hawaii, are casting our three electoral votes for John F. Kennedy.
At the time they did this, they were not the certified electors, they were not the duly approved electors of the state, they merely claimed to be.
The recount in Hawaii continued, and it actually turned out they were, I don't know if we'll say they were objectively right, but it worked for them.
They concluded, actually, Kennedy won the state by about 115 votes, one of the closest state results ever.
And so, they retracted the certification, submitted a new certification, and a judge said, alright, you can swap it out.
And the reason you can swap this out is because there is a Democratic elector that was there to have it put in and then they send it to congress and nixon the vice president says all right we're counting the democrat ones his own election not much of his own same with pence like same sort of thing and that's how it was that was the precedent they had to go on that is what all the republican alternate electors were looking towards when they did this and this is as we pointed out in november 2020 the day after the election
remember the day after trump was still ahead they hadn't had all all the ballots hadn't been found yet you have uh...
van jones and you have lawrence less like a harvard law professor They come out, and they write an article saying, we need to make sure all the ballots are counted, and they're gonna try to slow count this, because Trump's ahead, and so we need to make it so, if it's still in dispute, when we get to that December day, both of them should convene, and they should submit electoral college certifications.
They're not certificates, they're certificates of voice.
And then that way, we'll just let it go until the latest possible date.
This is what a professor at Harvard Law says to do.
And now, four years later, because they look at the polls and Donald Trump is winning in the state of Arizona, and winning in the state of Nevada, and winning in the state of Georgia, and winning in many polls in all his Rust Belt states, they're thinking, oh crap, we need to get this guy in prison.
We need to throw more charges at all of his people.
Yes.
And oh, turns out, all the stuff in Hawaii, oh that was fraud, that was illegal.
All that stuff Lawrence Schlesing, the Harvard Law professor had to do, it's a crime.
This is outrageous.
This is unhinged.
This is the crap that you do.
I don't even want to say you do it in Russia.
You do this in, like, crappy African countries, where they're just winging it the whole time.
Be like, oh, it turns out, you know, the opposition leader was a criminal the whole time.
I hate these people.
Oh, we do have a picture of these.
Okay, here it is.
Democrat attorney Robert G. Dodge instructs the Democrat electors from Hawaii on how to cast their electoral ballots in the 1960s.
Look, right there.
There's the Hawaiian electors.
We've got to tweet that out.
Andrew, we've got to tweet that out.
We've got to get something.
We've got to tweet that out with the picture of the Arizona electors.
Like, one by one.
With the whole thing on that.
So, Jack, you've been monitoring this on social media.
What is the Queen of Hawaii or something?
Say that again, Jack.
I said, what is that, like the Queen of Hawaii or something?
Uh, it might be.
I mean, they got some... Well, the real thing here, one of the electors was named Ernest U. U-U-U.
Ernest U. Hey man, those Hawaiian names.
I love Hawaii.
It's a great place.
Unfortunately, it's become super, super lib.
Like, insanely.
It's a welfare state built on tourism and government money.
But, Jack, you've been monitoring this from abroad.
Blake did a really good job of breaking this down.
This is completely outrageous.
It is.
It is a new level.
I mean, they keep on kind of outdoing themselves.
This is worse than any of the other electoral ones they've done in other states.
So it is actually.
And look, I gave Tyler a shout out from the stage this morning here in Budapest.
And I said, everybody thinks that it's all funny games.
And everybody thinks it's just a bunch of rhetoric until they start knocking on your door or knocking on your friend's doors.
And the question is, when are you going to put up and fight?
When are you going to stop, you know, tone policing people and saying, Oh, that's a mean tweet.
That's a mean book title.
Meanwhile, suddenly you got people that are getting indicted for writing their name on a piece of paper.
And suddenly that makes them a criminal.
It's, it's nuts.
But as I was talking to more people about it here, And keep in mind, I'm in Eastern Europe, so I'm in the Eastern Bloc, the former Eastern Bloc.
And people came coming up to me afterwards saying, Jack, this is exactly what used to happen around here.
They would find some little piece of paper that you signed.
They would find some paperwork that their judge had declared was, you know, not correct or something.
And all of a sudden, because your name on it, you were a criminal.
And, you know, it goes without saying, we say it all the time here on ThoughtCrime.
We say it in our own programs.
It's very obvious.
It's extremely obvious in this case that what they did was they decided that they were going to find the 12 people who were the most effective in Arizona politics, or Tyler, who's so effective at the ballot initiative level when it comes to these chase the votes and chase the ballots nationwide, which Turning Point Action is doing.
And that's why they've decided to pursue something like this, especially on such a cockamamie case.
It's being brought by this AG who, as everyone said, has barely won her own election, which she herself, by the way, played a role in making sure that there were certain votes that were not certified in her own election, a huge role where she was preventing votes from being counted and things being certified, etc.
And so I would simply say that it shows you the stakes, right?
Everyone can see Trump on trial right now.
Everyone can see when they're going after people who are our own friends, where they're going after somebody who, you know, I was kind of, I think I flippantly said on the last podcast or maybe two weeks ago, the last ThoughtCrime, that, oh, it looks like none of us are in the news lately.
Like for once, none of us didn't drive a news cycle.
And now all of a sudden, you know, this happens to Tyler the next week and it's, It's horrifying, but it's also clarifying to know that like, you know, guys, if we lose, this is what's going to happen to all of us.
This is going to happen.
It's going to happen to Blake.
It's going to happen to Andrew.
It's going to happen to Charlie.
It's going to happen to me.
It's going to happen to our families.
It's going to happen to your businesses.
And so anybody out there who's listening, just keep in mind that once, you know, they, they will come for you.
They will come for you on whatever pretext they can get by again.
And as Blake has said, They built the infrastructure for this.
They built the judges.
We were talking about this in the pre-show, but they spent years building the institutions, building the legal bench for this.
And Charlie, I throw it back to you on this.
I mean, with the conservatives that we have on the bench and people say, you know, Trump got so many judges elected.
And obviously that's the federal level, it's the state level.
But I just don't see this level of of pervert when I talk when I look at the conservative, you know, legal appointees.
It's just not there that would the same way you see with the Democrats, with the liberals.
You know, our guys are more likely to, you know, kind of stick their thumb up or like Amy Coney Barrett.
You know, she's basically like a pro-life liberal at this point.
And in terms of the way that she's been ruling on so many different things.
And the question is like, what is it going to take for us to achieve parity there?
So I was talking to a former attorney general yesterday that I won't let me name of a major state.
And I was really fired up.
I called him, and I said, uh, so when are we going to start indicting them?
I mean, it's a position we say on this program, because I sent him this, and he said, well, we don't do that.
I said, okay, well, we're going to lose.
And you know what he said?
He said, well, I'd rather lose with honor than win messily.
I said, okay.
I said that.
Thank you for being for being so clear.
I called another guy that was in a very high level law enforcement and he said the exact same thing.
Three.
You know me, Blake, when I get fired up, I just start texting and calling everybody.
It's kind of a problem.
Andrew knows that, too, is I just I can't stand mass injustice.
I can't stand seeing our beautiful country.
It's actually one of my favorite things about Charlie.
Oh, thank you.
Yes, uh, yeah, Andrew enjoys it.
Yeah, it's, um, you have to be a person of agency and action.
Andrew, this is something that you and I deal with a lot because these people think so highly of themselves and the law and the administration, administering of it.
And I, I want to just be clear.
There's only two ways this will go.
We win messily or we lose honorably.
Andrew, do you think that's a proper way to look at it?
Yeah, I mean, we talk about mutually assured destruction a lot.
And I think that there's some, there's a reason that we, we do that because they have to feel the pain.
They have to understand that they've unleashed Pandora's box.
And if you're not willing to press the red button, then they're just going to continue operating with impunity.
And I, you know, this is where we get the boomer hate mail in, but a lot of this is generational.
Like if we had this conversation on a college campus with a lot of wingers, Uh, you know, these young guys that come out and watch you table, Charlie, they'd be like, they would totally get it.
They would totally get that.
They are living.
We are living in an America that is no longer fair.
That's no longer decent from an institutional level.
And they would understand like, yeah, you gotta, you gotta hit back.
It does.
I don't like it.
It's not good.
Um, this is not who we are as a country or should be, but we have to hit back and yeah.
But once you get to a certain age range and I would say probably like 60 and older, They're not prepared to take that leap because it seems dirty.
You have to get your hands dirty.
You have to actually go against our nature.
And I think Vivek has actually talked about this is that the conservative mindset is about We're just wired differently than progressives.
We want to keep things beautiful.
We're not necessarily wired to build and restore and build from scratch, right?
The conservative, you want to conserve it.
But right now we're in a time in our country where the institutions that we've long admired and loved and appreciated that have kept us free and safe, And I just want to be clear on what Blake's thought on this.
There's a fair amount of delusion that exists, though, where they say, oh, it's not that bad.
I just want to be clear on what Blake's thought on this.
There's a fair amount of delusion that exists though, where they say, "Oh, it's not that bad." - It's really bad.
But I will say, when we say Messi, I do think you want to be careful.
What I think you have to give the left credit for, I know this will make people mad, you have to give them credit.
They are careful about laundering bad things they want to do through institutions that grant legitimacy.
Even worse than that, through institutions we honor.
Yes, that we honor.
And so what you do is you don't just Throw off some indictment and just roll with it.
Make sure you get a lot of law professors to write briefs saying that, you know, if we interpret the law correctly, you can totally do this thing.
And you make sure that all the journalists are, like, writing articles about how this is a totally reasonable thing to do.
You build up the momentum that justifies this.
And then you make sure that your indictment is really detailed.
And you try to pick things that are most vulnerable.
Pick an example that's not Trump.
You also picked cases where you can get away with it more.
The stuff they did to Alex Jones was really outrageous.
Yes.
But what they did is, they picked Alex Jones because they're like, well, he'll be a less sympathetic defendant.
And they assassinated him first in the media.
And he'll, frankly, he's more likely to do things that will blow up in his face.
Do you know why Alex Jones lost his defamation case?
He lost by default.
He didn't even go to a jury.
He lost because he broke the rules so much.
The judge said, I'm just holding you to lose by default, which happens if you're in court and you act really recklessly.
And yet now we have this precedent that you can do all this bad crap to people on the right using defamation law because of this case that we lost through a bad setup.
So what I will say is, and then I'll let Andrew go, is don't just say we don't want to have you should indict the left, like throw a thing off this Friday so you can go on Fox News and talk about how you're such a great hero for conservatism.
What I think you want to do is you have to view this as a you kind of need to invest in your own arms race.
Find red states.
You might have to say state legislature, expand the size of your AG's office so they can have more lawyers who do prospective investigations, who send subpoenas so we can get like SPLC is headquartered in Alabama, Montgomery, Alabama.
So expand the size of your AG office.
Think, well, there's a lot of suspicious stuff about the SPLC.
Didn't they have a sex scandal that was gonna get investigated, and then it just never was?
They just lied about it?
Democrats used to call them out.
Yes!
Democrats would call them out.
So why don't we start subpoenaing everything the SPLC has ever done, and all their communications, and who knows?
Maybe we'll find something.
Maybe we could expand our RICO laws and say, oh, you're doing all this stuff.
To enable people who are doing shady stuff at our border that helps illegals come here.
Yeah, we're deciding that that's actually a deliberate abetment of criminal behavior at the border, and we're going to, you know, indict you for that.
You have to think hard about it, and then execute on it.
And if you do it carefully, it's way stronger than if you just do a stunt.
I agree.
It shouldn't be a stunt, but it needs to be a strategy.
Andrew, your thoughts?
Well, that's exactly, I mean, I don't think, when I say indict the left, Articulating what you just said, Blake.
that there is vast amounts of criminality that is left unprosecuted, uninvestigated from left-wing actors, right?
And the amount of collusion between this White House and different prosecutors around the country is something I would love to get involved with.
I mean, we had, Charlie, you had that op-ed in The Federalist that went mega viral, and it basically presented five or six different options where you could start.
One of the things that we struggle with, to your point blank, is in And that outbed, by the way, was an effort to do exactly what you're talking about.
It was saying, hey, we have to start thinking about this.
It was like a trial balloon.
Get this idea into the jet stream on the right.
But then here is the problem with what you just said.
And I agree with everything you just said.
We have to then get it institutionally supported, right?
So you start, then you start building out into the different wings of your party apparatus, the different groups that might be around.
We don't have that type of institutional support, and one of our main AG's office is hamstrung, namely Texas, because he needs so much stuff to be referred to him or handed to him.
The whole system is so goofy.
The A's have so much more power in Texas, and that's our largest Republican Attorney General office, right?
So, put meat on the bones, because I think you think deeply about these things.
Take a real-life example.
How would you see it gaining momentum and support the right way, given the limitations of right-wing institutions in America right now?
Federalist society?
You have to want it, but no.
I mean, it has to first be the AG's offices are the new battleground.
Letitia James, AG.
Chris James, AG.
Chris Mays.
Dana Nessel in Michigan, a state-based Attorney General.
So, you make a list of ten major Democrat organizations, the same way that they isolated the NRA, and then you start investigating.
Investigating requires nothing.
You just send subpoenas.
They do this all the time.
Right yeah, the NRA one especially there is the thing is New York is a big state has a lot of money They can have a huge AG's office I think they have over a thousand attorneys and it's some insane number like that So it's a it's as large as a major corporate law firm and they have a lot of lawyers they can work New York's got a million of them and What they did is they created a unit inside the New York AG's office that was essentially we need to kill the NRA and And they even interfaced this with the left.
Mayor Bloomberg, he literally has funded news outlets whose purpose is to write anti-gun stories so that the media can have these anti-gun stories that you can then cite in legal briefings and all of this.
It's a whole operation.
And they had this for years!
This is not- the stuff they've done against the NRA that we talk about now is because of cases they filed in 2020 based on investigations they started in 2015!
A decade-long operation, and I think that's the sort of commitment to a specific cause that the right has to learn to copy from.
You have to, you know, it's kind of the old thing that civilization is planting a tree you'll never sit in the shade of.
It's, uh, political effectiveness is, you know, beginning the crusade that you won't be able to take credit for on the news later.
I like that.
Well, Eric did that in Missouri.
Sorry, go ahead, Jack.
Oh, no, I can say I actually comment on that because it's Very similar to what Orban has done here in Hungary.
So he was out of power for a couple of years when he wasn't prime minister.
And during that time, what he did was, and people know the backstory, of course, Orban basically ran George Soros out of Hungary and had all of the Soros organizations were here in Hungary before they were anywhere else.
And his whole rise to power in Hungary was based around him just railing against George Soros from taking over the country and getting rid of him.
But when he was out of the prime ministership for a period before his third term, I believe I have that right, what he did is he would go around and he started building the conservative ecosystem all around the country.
And so he just built these organizations like what Blake is talking about here.
And he would go to donors and say, Hey, we need an organization that's going to do this.
And they're going to be focused on like family issues.
And this is the, this is the department of this, the organization that was on crime.
This is our media network.
This is our, um, just whatever it was, whatever the issue was, there was going to be an organization for it.
So that when he came back into the prime ministership, all of those organizations or like the top people from those organizations were able to just go one over And suddenly now they're staffing the government's administration.
Now, um, and it's been incredibly effective.
And this is what, and you're starting to see this in nascent stages, obviously, you know, Turning Point and others, uh, Claremont Institute are examples of this, but we just don't have enough of it, uh, yet in the U S to, to compete with what the left has.
And we're starting to build it.
Now, fortunately we have like truth on our side and things like that, that are very helpful for us.
Um, but just to give another example in Europe.
So in Poland, The law and justice party just got out of power in their prime ministership.
And the problem was they didn't build any of those organizations when they were in power.
So now they're out of power.
They have like nothing.
They have no infrastructure.
They lost all their TV networks.
They lost all their online presence.
They are like zeroed out completely.
And the left just went in and took over everything on the entire airwaves.
And they're just in absolute crisis point right now because it's like, what do we do since we don't have any of those organizations?
And so this is why it's kind of revolutionary in a sense, counter-revolutionary, I guess if you look at it this way, to have organizations like Turning Point and, oh, by the way, Turning Point Action, what just happened to their head?
Oh right, he just got indicted.
They're trying to slow down our political vehicle, that's part of this.
I'm terrified.
And by the way, I'm not just speculating it, literally, Vaughn Hillard, who goes on MSNBC, out of all the different people he could talk about, Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, he isolates Tyler Boyer on the indictment, and then mentions Charlie Kirk, Turning Point.
No, it's very important.
I want to talk about Wellness Company and I want to play that clip really quick.
It's super powerful.
At 134.
No, and because he didn't have to.
I mean, again, I get along with Vaughn.
I think Andrew, you do too.
He's like the Mr. Arizona of NBC News.
He's always treated us very factually and fairly.
But I guarantee you, he knew what he was doing.
He was a super left-wing audience.
He's like, oh guys, no, no, no, you don't understand.
This is a way to, like, stop the political momentum.
You don't understand.
You don't understand.
Here we go.
Alright, uh, Wellness Company.
Blake's doing a lot better.
Let's get Blake on camera.
Blake was really sick.
In fact, he was so sick I made him quarantine.
He's doing a lot better, thanks to the Wellness Company.
Wellness Company Contagion Emergency Kit.
I was just throwing antibiotics at him.
It eats all the viruses.
No, it doesn't.
Sorry, I just messed around.
Do not take antibiotics if you have.
There are antibiotics in this, if you need it.
It's one of its kind.
The Prescription Emergency Kit from the Wellness Company provides you with a carefully selected assortment of effective medications for bird flu.
COVID-19 and other respiratory illnesses.
Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, Z-Pak, Tamiflu, Budisacinide, I don't know what that is, along with a nebulizer.
So you can rest easy knowing that you have emergency meds on hand, along with a guidebook for safe use.
So check it out right now.
It is twc.health.cj.
Use promo code CJ to save $30 off plus free shipping at checkout.
That is twc.health.cj.
U.S. scientists, as you well know, worked with Chinese scientists to make an infectious strain more deadly of bird flu.
the university of wisconsin is working in a function research hitting headlines Scientists claim it could be 100 times more deadly than COVID.
Well, make sure that you guys have the things that you need to protect yourself and your family.
TWC.health slash CJ.
Promo code CJ saves you $30 at checkout.
Okay, let's play Cut 134.
Right, and let's just use Tyler Boyer as an example.
Tyler Boyer is not going to be a household name to most folks, but he is the RNC committee man from Arizona.
So he is the one that at every RNC meeting, winter meeting, summer meeting, he's the one that has a vote for Arizona, picks the chair of the party, for example.
He is the person who is not only one of these fake electors indicted, but also RNC committee man, but he's also the chief operating officer of Turning Point USA.
Which is the Charlie Kirk organization, the Trump-aligned organization, that has garnered millions of dollars and has effectively taken over the Arizona Republican Party in recent years.
Tyler Boyer, Charlie Kirk, they're close with the likes of Carrie Lake, Abe Homiday, who was the opponent to Chris Mays in the Attorney General's race in 2022, and was an election denier.
Okay, so that was what we just have been covering.
They're afraid of us, man.
Oh, they're afraid of us.
A hundred percent.
The lights!
The lights!
I just want to say one thing.
It's easy for kind of me to go do the show and be like, oh, it's all about Turning Point.
And then I watched MSNBC last night and I'm like, okay, it's kind of all about Turning Point.
It's kind of about Turning Point.
Like he didn't have to.
If you say Turning Point's important, you know, you're talking your book, but if they're When they say turning point's important, okay, alright.
I was literally, as the indictment dropped, you know, supporting Tyler, called up, Tyler's like, we got your back whole thing, you know, we're taking your legal fees, the whole thing.
And I turn on MSNBC, boom, Vaughn Hassan's talking there, I was like, okay.
All right, speaking of atom bombs, where we just went through an atom bomb in Arizona of an indictment, Tucker Carlson has really started an incredible debate on the right.
Do we have Tucker's interview with Joe to kind of jog us along?
It's, uh, clip 77.
Okay, just, this is Tucker Carlson on the Joe Rogan program.
I liked this interview a lot.
I thought there were some topics that Tucker might have, you know, that are taken out of context when you talk about it.
I personally thought the interview was great, and before I get into 77, there's a neighbor of mine who is not yet right-wing.
He stopped me.
He said, Charlie, I've listened to the Rogan-Tucker interview three times.
He's like, I'm voting for Trump.
And I was like, really?
Trump wasn't even really mentioned in this.
And he's like, no no no, my eyes are open.
So I just want everyone to know that Tucker's impact on this interview, at least anecdotally on the micro, has really been impactful, especially when he's talking about the populist stuff.
Let's play Cut77.
I love, by the way, that people on my side, I'll just say, I'll just admit it, on the right, you know, have spent the last 80 years defending dropping nuclear weapons on civilians.
Like, are you joking?
Right.
That's just like prima facie evil.
If you can't, well, if we hadn't done that, then this, that, the other thing, that was actually a great savings.
No, it's wrong to drop nuclear weapons on people.
And if you find yourself arguing that it's a good thing to drop nuclear weapons on people, then you are evil.
Like, it's not a tough one, right?
Is that a hard call for you?
It's not a hard call for me.
So let me start this off.
I have always found a moral problem with dropping the atom bombs, plural, on Japan.
I've always been argued from authority from people.
Charlie, you don't understand.
It would have killed a lot of millions of Americans.
I just had a moral problem with indiscriminate mass killing.
And I'm glad this discussion is happening.
I can't defend it as well as most people.
So I was actually shocked.
Blake picked this topic and I was like, okay, he's probably gonna be an atom bomb defender, but you're anti.
And that actually comforts me because I've always had this opinion.
I just failed to believe that we in America have to resort to, I don't wanna say genocide, but like just- - It's an interesting thing and I do wanna get into it.
Just to set the stage, because this is starting a big debate, Jeremy Boring at the Daily Wire, he had a tweet that 6 million people viewed, where he says, in response to what Tucker did, that you hate America, essentially, right?
People, he talked about other stuff, people who deny the moon landing, or suggest America is evil for its use of atomic weapons against Imperial Japan, says some other stuff, but People who say just America's bad for using A-bombs actually hate this country.
Let me just defend Jeremy.
I like Jeremy a lot.
I don't think he meant what he wrote in a sense.
I think he meant that some people that say these things hate the country.
Oh, for sure.
I think that's what he meant by the tweet, but that's not what the tweet said.
I think the atom bomb is evil and I love America.
There are plenty of people who say the A-bomb is bad because they think America is bad, so anything America did is bad.
I think that's what Jeremy meant, but that's not what he wrote.
Well, that's fair.
That's very fair.
But I do think it's very common to have the opposite, which is, America's a good country, and America did the A-bombs, so therefore, that was a good thing, because America's a good country.
And World War II was a good war.
Obviously, we should have been fighting Japan.
They bombed us.
They were a reprehensible country.
But the question itself is very interesting, because People will argue, as they say, that if we didn't use it, more Americans would have died, the war would have gone on longer, we would have had to invade Japan, and I think what is the interesting pill to swallow is, even if that was true, I think it's still wrong to do it.
And what it is, it's as Tucker says.
What was the A-bomb?
We're taking this insanely powerful weapon, and we're just deploying it against a city.
A city that is, by nature, overwhelmingly civilians.
You know, just old people, women, children, non-combatants of all sort, and just deploying it against a city.
And you can make that argument.
You can say, under a utilitarian calculus, that That's okay.
But that sort of calculus is fundamentally a modernist view, and it's kind of a left-wing view.
Every group of people who have done atrocities in history have said that it is justified because in the long run, the greater good for the greater number of people justifies us doing this outrageous thing.
And what I would say is when you look at periods of our history, which were, I would say, more informed by Christian principle, you would not do this.
Consider General Sherman, March to the Sea, famous act of total war.
General Sherman's guidelines say he says, OK, here's what you do.
You take enough food that a person can live on to survive and you give it to those people.
You take all the extra and you destroy it.
You burn warehouses and big buildings, you rip up railroads, don't burn down anyone's homes.
Is that what he did?
Yeah.
Well, I don't know how perfect it was in practice, I did once, I'm not making this up, I once looked at the census for Georgia in 1860 and 1870, and I looked at all the counties that Sherman walked through, And they all had higher populations in 1870, so he definitely didn't depopulate them, I will say.
But you see this, you know, in the American Revolution, there are a few atrocities, but there are just not mass civilian killings.
The British do not obliterate Boston and kill everyone in it, even when they're occupying the city.
And in the Civil War, there are atrocities occasionally, but we do not obliterate Richmond.
We do not just send cavalrymen riding through the South and just kill everyone they see.
And one of the developments you see of the 20th century is total war, which is anyone who's in the opposing country is fair game to be killed for any reason, because they're part of the opposing country.
And the powers that embrace this are Nazi Germany, are the Soviet Union, it is, and then the people who most sympathize with that are the people in America who sympathize with those ideologies.
And it is fundamentally against Christian principle to say, I think it's St.
Paul says, you know, woe to those who say, let us do evil, that good may result from this.
also in Isaiah too.
Yeah.
And so you just, like Tucker says, you just don't do that.
And so I just, I want to get other people in on this really quick, but Blake, as quickly as you can, what do you say to the argument that people are emailing us in and will also email us in Japan would have never stopped fighting unless they were faced with a world ending situation.
They don't surrender.
They had incredible resolve.
We would have had to put in millions of American troops, hundreds of thousands would have died and no one's defending the atom bomb as being a great thing, but it was like a necessary, um, tragedy to end what would have been even more bloody for all people involved.
At that point, you can get into these details on it and that gets into additional For example, Japan was putting out feelers where they say, we want to surrender, but we just want a guarantee that, like, we won't hang the emperor because he's sacred.
And we were saying, no, it has to be unconditional.
And that was the big break point.
And then in the end, we kept the emperor anyway.
So we had the war go on a longer length of time.
So I never knew that.
So they were teasing out a surrender before the bomb.
Yes, like there were attempts at negotiation and we were saying unconditional only.
That was a major thing we insisted for both Germany and Japan, and there were reasons to do this, but it is noteworthy that the biggest sticking point is something we didn't actually insist upon in the end.
I think you could also just point out there are, you know, steps between use the atom bomb not at all and use it on a city with 300,000 people in it.
For example, what if we just said, hey Japan, Go look at Tokyo Bay tomorrow, and then we drop the atom bomb in Tokyo Bay.
I've always thought that.
Why don't we bomb an island in sight?
Yeah, or truck.
Truck is a Japanese fortress, and we could say, here's a camera, here's your fortress on truck.
Boom!
Blow it up.
That was a purely military installation.
Yeah, but then I guess their argument is... Yeah, Jack, do you want to chime in on this?
Well, I'll ask Blake a question before I chime in, but Blake, what credence do you give... I've heard this argument more recently, um...
That the reason for the A-bombs was sort of meant as a, and I don't know how historical this is, but there may have been some writing about it at the time, that it was sort of meant as a message, not necessarily to Japan, but actually a message to the Soviets.
So people have to keep in mind, the Soviet Union has just occupied Japanese-controlled Manchuria on the Chinese mainland at this point and was threatening an invasion of the Japanese home islands.
So obviously the Japanese homelands are never invaded.
The US had done the island hopping throughout the South Pacific with the Huya US Navy.
And so there's this theory, and I don't even know how historical it is, but there's this theory that because the Cold War, people could realize that World War II was ending and the new competition was going to be between the US and the Soviets.
So that this becomes then a message to the Soviets.
I think that's an example of where you get like liberal arguments against the bomb Because it's sort of an after-the-fact thing.
I've looked at it.
I don't believe there's strong evidence.
This is what motivated it This is after the fact where a lot of people who sympathize with the Soviet Union and don't like America will say America did this bad thing just because they hated the Soviets and had to send a message to the Soviets.
Well, we're also not indicting the intention.
Yeah, I think we wanted to And if you look at the reasons they did it, like what Truman himself said, is he said, I'm the commander in a war, we developed a weapon to win that war, and it would be insane for me not to use that weapon.
And Truman's a very straightforward guy in everything you can read about him.
Plain speaking Missouri.
Plain speaking Missouri guy.
I think he's basically telling the truth.
We made a weapon, we're already bombing Japanese cities.
That's a whole additional issue.
So why would I not use this other weapon that could help us end the war?
Well, there was a third, too.
There was a third.
It would have been a delay after that.
Here is what I wanted to weigh in on, and it's kind of what you just mentioned there.
A lot of people think that the A-bomb, because it is the first and only time, like the two times, that the A-bomb or any type of nuclear weapon was used in warfare, True, but this also wasn't the only time that cities were indiscriminately bombed through the use of strategic or carpet bombing in World War II.
Certainly not by the Allies who conducted carpet bombing all over Europe, but even, of course, the Germans were bombing the heck out of London too.
So indiscriminate bombing was something that had already gone on to quite an extent up to this point, and that is not to get into the morality of that, but I am pointing out that this isn't the first time that it was done.
Andrew, where do you fall on this?
Yeah, I mean, I, what Jack just said, uh, factors into my thinking.
I think a lot.
I think in general, I think it's a, a really bad moral conundrum to get stuck in where you're, you're defending the use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict on civilians.
I mean, think about it was a quarter of a million people upwards.
Uh, mostly civilians died in Japan.
Uh, and that's, that's incredible.
If you think about it, a quarter of a million people.
Um, and so I think that's terrible, but I've always thought of it as like, the only reason it happened is because it was the first time, you know, I, when I think about it historically, it's like, Oh, it's only been used once.
Well, It sort of, it won't happen again.
It was, as a kid, I remember thinking because, you know, they just got the weapon, right?
It was the, it had only been around for a very short amount of time, and they used it once, and we realized the horror and the tragedy of it won't be used again.
So I sort of give them a little bit of pass because of the moment in history it happened, but to Jack's point, I mean, Dresden, there was 25,000 civilians were killed in the Dresden bombings, right?
If you just think about the fact that this was going on, and it was going both ways.
And I think if you put yourself in that moment of time, and you realize just how brutal the enemy was, I'm sure there was an emotion.
You know, humans are emotional, right?
So there's a place where you could say, rationally, killing civilians is bad.
Totally agree, 100%.
But you're coming at the end of a long and bloody conflict.
Where Axis powers have tried to take over the world and you're wanting to send a really big signal, don't try this again.
We are more powerful than you.
We will destroy you.
And you've been doing this to us.
We have hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers, millions on the allied side, and you get to the end of that and your emotions are frayed.
Your emotional calculus is different.
So in the moment I have I have some historically have some grace on that moment, but I think the lesson should be, you know, let's not do this again.
this is actually a morally problematic thing to do.
And let's not get there again.
I mean, I think that's kind of where I net out on it.
I have some grace on the men and women that made that decision, mostly men.
Well, hold on.
I want to ask a question, though, really quick.
And I need to talk about Noble Gold Investments.
I want to talk about how Tucker connected all the dots, though, because he didn't just bring it up flippantly.
He connected the atom bomb as almost the beginning of the New Testament of the American story.
That was his argument.
That it made us seem that we are gods.
I think that's being lost in the conversation.
More of, do you hate the country or not, which I think is silly.
Really quick, Noble Gold Investments, and I want Jack's thought on that.
Check out noblegoldinvestments.com.
It is a wonderful, wonderful company.
I buy all of my gold there.
If investing feels overwhelming right now, I understand.
It can be so complicated.
Your money is losing value.
in the bank every day.
So if it's stressing you out and driving you nuts, why not invest smarter with Noble Gold Investments?
Noble Gold Investments, American-based experts, will show you how to set and forget your IRA or 401k.
No hassle, no call centers.
This month, Noble Gold Investments is giving a free quarter ounce gold standard coin with each qualifying IRA investment.
Visit noblegoldinvestments.com to claim your gold coin.
That is noblegoldinvestments.com.
So check it out, noblegoldinvestments.com.
No hassle, no call centers.
You'll get a dedicated, professional aligned, assigned just to you, noblegoldinvestments.com.
So Jack, I want to ask the question here.
What do you think of Tucker's thought here?
We said that created a the greatest generation and then boomers a hubris, a pride.
Once we dropped the bomb, we felt as if we were like God.
Is that a good summary of Tucker's argument, Blake?
He said that repeatedly.
Jack, you heard that as well.
Jack Posobiec, your thoughts?
Yeah, it's a strong argument.
I don't know...
I've never really thought of it that way.
And Blake and I have done podcasts about sort of the 60s and how the 60s came about.
And you're right, actually, there is a huge amount.
And Tucker's right, I should say.
There's a huge amount of hubris that comes about because of them.
But I would also say that keep in mind that it's also the space race going on at this time.
You're also talking about in the 50s and then even more so into the 60s, you have the height of the Cold War.
Because once the Rosenbergs steal the bomb through the theft of the Manhattan Project, they are then duly executed for doing so, giving it to the Soviet Union.
Because this goes away very quickly, is what I'm saying.
So if there was a level of hubris because of it, it goes away quickly because the Soviets get the bomb.
And then so there becomes this paranoia as well about who's got the bomb, who's going to get the bomb next, and then when is the bomb going to come?
And this is where you get the under the table missile drills in schools and things like that.
An interesting argument.
I don't know how much I agree with it.
Certainly, there's a lot of hubris there.
There's no question about that.
But there's also a lot of paranoia as well.
And that, I think, bleeds into a lot of the Cold War would kind of be my response to all of it.
And, you know, really, the one interesting piece of it, and I'll just say this from having, you know, lived in Asia for so many years, is that what's interesting is that when I'm in Japan, And speaking as an American when I'm there, the only time I ever really hear this come up, anything about the atomic bomb, and sure they have memorials to it, and it's more about the horror of living through it, but you don't really face any animosity as an American, number one.
I mean, if you go to Japan, you're just not going to see Anyone having an issue with you being an American, even though, yes, we are the country that bombed Japan.
But then number two, the only place you will ever hear it from are like the extreme, like ultra nationalists, like bring back the emperor, kind of get the United States bases out of Japan.
Those guys who are like a very small sliver of Japanese society.
And so it's what's interesting to me is that we'll tie ourselves in knots over this.
Where as the Japanese really do kind of, by and large, and not to speak for the Japanese, but in my experience there, it seems they really do just view it as an act, as Andrew was just saying, who's filling in for our dear friend Tyler, just an act of war that was done through the course of the war and it happened and it was a long time ago and that's it.
Yeah, I just, I'll close this topic with how Blake said it.
I refuse to believe that there were no other creative options that we could have employed.
We were in the driver's seat.
We were in the driver's seat before we, the West, we America, just start bombing civilians.
I don't think it's a good moment in American history.
I think it's a stain on our history.
I do.
Andrew, final thoughts?
I think there is almost a metaphysical element to this, not to sound too in the clouds or fringe about it, but I have to believe that when you unleash a destructive force like that onto the planet, that there are unintended consequences that we cannot even begin to fathom.
You know, whether that, I mean, you just don't know where those kinds of things will work out in art and architecture and in your country, in the spirit of your people. - That's what Tucker says.
He says all the art died after the atom bomb.
That's probably a bit strong.
I know, but that's his argument.
He thinks that it was the end of American ingenuity.
I just want to end with a few quotes because I think a lot of people aren't aware of this.
In the first days after it was dropped, it was overwhelmingly on the right and with conservatives who said this is a morally questionable thing.
Or it's just wrong.
And Truman was a Democrat.
And Truman was a Democrat.
But don't obsess over the parties.
Like, Fulton Sheen.
Have you heard of Fulton Sheen?
Yeah, he's the Cardinal.
He's my favorite.
You know what he said?
He should be sanctified.
Is that the right word?
Bishop... canonized.
Bishop Fulton Sheen said that the atom bomb... I'm gonna read this as a quote.
Fulton Sheen said that the atomic bombing was, quote, our national sin, and he argued that the counterculture came from it.
Father James Gillis was a Catholic priest as well, he edited Catholic World.
He called it, quote, the most powerful blow ever delivered against Christian civilization and the moral law.
Fulton Sheen said that?
No, this was Father James Gillis, another Catholic priest at the time who was like a conservative.
George Schuyler was a contributor to the National Review in its early days and he said, let me see, not satisfied with being able to kill people by the thousand, we have achieved the supreme triumph of being able to slaughter whole cities at a time.
Is there anything from Human Events Magazine?
I don't see it at the time.
I'm reading this article by a guy named Andrew Cusack.
Just, I want to shout him out because he helped change my mind on this.
But there's another guy, there were military voices.
Admiral William Leahy said, it was, we have adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Age.
I was not taught to make war in that fashion.
Wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
So I just wanted to throw that out there.
I think, I forget who it was that you quoted.
I'd never heard that before, Blake.
But I completely, you said, somebody said it led to the counter-revolution, the cultural revolution.
That was Sheen.
Fulton Sheen said that.
Yeah.
I mean, I don't have a direct line between A and B there.
And he probably has had it all worked out, how that happened.
But that's exactly what I'm talking about.
It's like, you know, we've talked about it on the show before.
Charlie, I know you and I have talked about it.
It's like, you know, Osama bin Laden set to destroy, set out to destroy the American empire.
Right.
And he maybe didn't live to see it.
Right.
But at the same time, how successful in 50 years are we gonna look back and say how successful Osama bin Laden was at getting us to destroy ourselves and pour our wealth and treasure into blood and sand in the Middle East and create all this domestic infighting and chaos, right?
You go back to the atomic bomb, same concept.
It's like, okay, we won that battle, but what were the unintended consequences?
How did we stain the next generation with this, With this moment in history that's so cataclysmic.
Now, like I said, I have grace on the men that made this decision because of the moment they were in and because of the evil they thought they were fighting.
But what have we done?
What did we unleash?
That's right.
Yeah, Jack, go ahead.
If I can do it, just not to toot my own horn, but just to say where it is.
So I did pull up to Human Events Magazine, of which I'm currently the senior editor, as people know, existed at this time.
We have this quote here.
Just weeks after Japan's surrender, an article published in conservative magazine Human Events contended that America's atomic destruction of Hiroshima might be morally more shameful and more degrading than Japan's indefensible and infamous act of aggression at Pearl Harbor.
Wow.
Wow.
And they were saying this, I want to be clear, they were saying this at the time.
These are the people who were fighting the war, who had family members and friends fighting the war.
So this is not just judging it 50 years after the fact when it's easy.
All right, guys, so let's continue on this Tucker through line here.
So, Blake, you in particular can comment on this, but there was a lot of blowback to this episode on social media, is that right?
Well, I'll be honest, I don't know if that's right.
In my micro-world, I can think of a couple dozen examples of people who loved it, but Twitter didn't love it.
Is that right?
But Twitter is not real life.
Twitter is definitely not real life.
We have to keep reminding ourselves that.
Yeah, well, so it wasn't, it definitely wasn't just the atomic bomb thing.
There was a lot of topics.
They discussed building 7.
Well, there were aliens, radiation, building 7.
He said the theory of evolution was fake.
Kitty porn on your computer from the intelligence agencies.
Whoa, I missed that one.
No, there was.
No, there was kitty porn on your website, on your computer from the intelligence agencies.
Like, that was the thing he kept saying.
Did he say that?
Like, they would frame people for it?
Yeah.
He said that if you say the wrong thing, the intel agencies put that on your... Whoa!
Which happened to Cheryl Atkinson.
Which actually happened to Cheryl Atkinson, the journalist.
They did that to her?
They did, and she's got all the documents, and it's been suppressed.
Wow.
And she's like a normal, regular, like... Wasn't she a CBS reporter before?
Yeah, she was.
She was, yeah.
Yeah, she was CBS.
He's not the perfect firebrand, anything.
No.
So, but anyone can chime in here.
I loved the interview.
I want Blake to take the fifth on this right now, because he's too biased on this particular topic.
I liked it.
Jack, do you think it was smart for Tucker, for the movement, to go into that kind of a format?
I was neutral.
I think absolutely, because 30 to 40 million people have probably listened or have watched clips of this.
Your thoughts, Jack, on the Tucker Rogan insane viral conversation?
Well, so there's a couple of thoughts, right?
And I can get I'll say it this way.
I can understand where people, some people are coming from in good faith if they're criticizing it and saying like people are used to seeing Tucker Carlson slay dragon.
They want to see him slaying dragon.
They want him going after their most hated, virulent politicians and leftists and leftist ideas and saying the things that shouldn't be said and talking about, ooh, the great replacement or, you know, ooh, racial crime stats or something like that.
And that's that's kind of what they're looking for.
Whereas Tucker himself, his interests don't necessarily align with that all the time.
I don't think they don't ever.
But there are times where he wants to explore different things.
And I think people need to understand that Tucker's done a ton for the movement and Tucker's got more achievements than most people in the movement combined.
And so if he wants to take some time to explore different areas, he's more than earned the right to do that.
And furthermore, he isn't like duty-bound to discuss certain things or be a certain puppet for anyone.
I mean, he's independent now.
Certainly he doesn't have to do any of that.
He doesn't owe anyone anything in terms of it.
But at the same time, I guess what I could say is that there are also people who are sort of commenting in bad faith Because I do think that with Tucker, with Tucker leaving his position at Fox, it created a situation where, you know, he had been sort of the undisputed top dog of like conservative slash alternate media.
And now it almost seems like there's a vacuum and you see other groups and I'm not going to, you know, call out anyone specifically, but you can certainly see other groups viewing the ability to sort of attack Tucker now as a way of trying to usurp that position, which I think is stupid and very nearsighted.
So I would think bad for the movement.
I'd say it's what's bad for the movement.
Is this like heady sniping, which just comes across as jealousy?
Yeah, it's ankle biting.
But but Blake, what is wrong with I mean, Rogan traditionally doesn't have political guests.
He will, like, one out of every thirty.
Right?
Comedians, all that.
He has, yeah, he's had James Lindsay, Christopher Ruffo, Riley Gaines in the last, like, this year.
Those are his three conservatives.
He's had Bernie Sanders on the program.
He's had Alex Jones, but I would say this is his most... He's had Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh.
Who was the one he had on and it caused them to, like, demand that, um... It might have been Al Jones.
No, it was Dr. Robert Malone.
It was the COVID stuff.
Malone is so talented and he just doesn't BS.
He just looked Joe in the eye and said, the vaccines are a depopulation agent, Joe.
I'm not saying I disagree or agree with that, Blake.
I'm just saying he said it and Spotify lost.
Mass formation psychosis.
Yeah, that's his thing, that's his thing.
So, but why wouldn't, what is, what is your criticism of this interview, if there is one?
Just when I talk to people and some of them are sort of disappointed by Tucker post-Fox, is I think, it's not that Tucker does anything new post-Fox, but he talks, I think, proportionally more about stuff that just, it feels almost off-topic.
Like, what are your big issues in the 2024 election?
Yeah, like, is it aliens?
Is it 9-11?
Is it whether evolution is true?
And those are all perfectly good things to talk about.
I think people have the sense that Tucker's biggest talent was he could zero in on what really mattered politically.
He did that in the interview, though, to be fair, though.
When he got to the Ukraine foreign aid stuff, but you would say that he veered off, of course?
A little bit.
I think, or at least, I think it's a matter of proportion.
When he would talk about aliens on Fox, it would be in the e-block, and it's like, oh, you do fun stuff late in your primetime show, and one of the things is, oh yeah, it's aliens!
And there would be funny, Tucker, it was very much like a funny self-aware thing.
There would be a funny aerial phenomenon where the sky would, like, have blue lights in it because of a weird lightning thing.
It's like, to people, is it UFOs?
maybe it could be.
Have a nice weekend, everybody.
Yeah, have a nice weekend.
But now it's, you know, now it seems like a bigger focus.
When proportionally, it's like we have, it feels like we're in a big crisis right now, not just with Ukraine, but with the border and with all this like legal overreach from the Biden administration.
And it's like a new thing every day.
And it's sort of in the past when you had a weekly show, Tucker would be there and he would come in and he'd be like, he'd be the guy taking point on all the reasons that this Arizona indictment of Tyler is super sinister.
He would say all the things we said on our show, and he would be one of the first to say it.
And now, he'll probably get to it, but he probably won't be one of the first to get to it, and he might only do one episode on it, and then nothing on it for weeks at a time.
So Andrew, let's have you close it out.
Andrew, you're the PR messaging genius.
What do you think?
No, I agree.
I agree with what Blake just said.
I think it's more of a structural issue of I know that on the Charlie Kirk show.
It's like, we know the lead, I would say 80% of the time because there's a breaking lead story.
Right.
And so when you're doing a nightly show, he has to hit that, that story that everybody wants to hear his opinion on.
But right now he's not bound to a, a, a publishing schedule.
Basically he kind of just releases content when it's ready.
And so that's one thing.
Second thing, Charlie, I listened to the majority of that interview.
I didn't listen to the whole, whole Tucker Rogan piece.
But to your point, there is large chunks of it that are right on the money where he's dialing in.
He's bringing that moral clarity on the truly important stuff.
But what the Internet does is it clips it.
And it clips different pieces of it.
I mean, your account was maybe potentially part of this, right?
The Building 7, I think your tweet did like three or four million impressions on Twitter because it was interesting.
But that doesn't mean that that was the predominant topic that was discussed in that three-hour interview.
It was just an interesting little clip.
But then the internet does what it does, and then it makes it out like that was the vast majority of the discussion.
So I think it's a structural issue.
But I think one other thing, the Israel topic when he had the – what was it?
I think he was a Lutheran actually, but it was the Christian guy from – was it Bethlehem?
I think it was that.
And then there was also the Russian grocery store thing.
So there's been a few little incidents that have been leading up to this, and people have started ankle-biting it, Tucker.
And I think it's just starting to gather momentum.
And this was just sort of like you see all of these these different weird ways that, you know, Tucker's a very curious guy.
So his mind goes in all these curious directions.
And, yeah, it's sort of it's creating this this atmosphere of a lot of noise.
And they do miss the nightly hitting the main story, the main and the most important thing.
But to Jack's point, Tucker's Tucker.
He's he's won the right to do this.
And to the extent that other people are going to criticize him, it's bound to happen.
But it's it's a lot of like clout chasing, in my opinion.
But it's it's it's a structural issue.
Here's what I probably actually think happened is that they were they spent some time together.
He was down in Austin and they did like a comedy show.
And then, you know, this was sort of it was like a weekend, like a long weekend in Austin or something.
So this is my impression.
And I I think I've ever met Rogan actually.
But I think what probably happened, because I've been around stuff like this a lot, is that they were probably just having a lot of off-screen conversations about those topics, and that just bled over into the show.
I don't think there's any... Well, if you've spent any time with Tucker, and I haven't probably spent as much as Blake or you, Jack, but I've spent some, it's just these crazy conversations come up and you talk about random stuff and it's really, really fascinating.
And Tucker is incredibly charming and extremely fascinating.
And it just does come up because he's a really curious guy.
The second thing I will say, and Jack, you and Charlie know this firsthand, is you become a victim of your own success.
So Tucker has been massively successful.
He's been built up to be this thing.
He represents the movement and he's the intellectual of the populist conservative movement and all of these things.
And then all of a sudden, unbeknownst to him, there's now rules applied to him where he's not able to sort of be a human and indulge in random conversations.
This happens to you and Charlie.
You come on the show, you talk about stuff that you just find interesting, and all of a sudden it's like getting clipped by, you know, the Biden campaign is like Trump's surrogate.
You know, Jack Posobiec, Trump's surrogate, Charlie Kirk, and it's like, no, we're not Trump's surrogate.
Like, yeah, we support him, but we also have our own life and our own show and our own things that we do.
Anyway, so it's partly... It's also like, people forget, dude, that Tucker, even after he left his show, I mean, just played this massively outsized role in the presidential primary, like, a couple of months ago.
It wasn't that long ago.
I don't know.
I think it's all very silly.
But of course, it's the world we live in, right?
Mike Pence's career, his entire career, right on state with his Iraq war questioning, just destroyed it.
There's no coming back.
And Mike Pence found that out in short order later.
So guys, it's like, I don't know.
I think it's all very silly.
But of course, it's the world we live in, right?
Because we live in a constant state of dopamine rush.
It doesn't matter what you did in the past.
It doesn't matter what your resume is.
What are you doing right now?
And I don't like this stuff right now.
I expect a certain thing from Tucker.
It's like, it's like the Ramones were together for 25 years and they kept making the same record, you know, for 25 years.
And that's fine because if they wanted to do that and be the Ramones, that's fine too.
But, you know, other bands go in different directions at different times.
And if the music is good, then why shouldn't they be allowed to do that?
Alright, everybody.
Until next week, we'll keep committing thought crimes.
