All Episodes
Previous
Dec. 26, 2025 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec
44:41
Human Events Daily AmFest Rumble Special

FOR ALL THE NEWS, ZERO STATIC, SUBSCRIBE TO HUMAN EVENTS WITH JACK POSOBIEC HERE: • Twitter ► https://twitter.com/humaneventslive • Rumble ► https://rumble.com/user/JackPosobiec • Tiktok► https://tiktok.com/humaneventslive • Instagram ► https://www.instagram.com/humaneventslive Support the show

|

Time Text
I want to take a second to remind you to sign up for the posto 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 posto daily brief.
This is what happens when the fourth turning meets fifth-generation warfare.
A commentator, international social media sensation, and former Navy intelligence veteran.
This is Human Events with your host, Jack Posovic.
Christ is king.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard to a special Amfest edition of Human Events Daily.
We're very excited here to have the illustrious panel with us.
We've got Rich Barris, the people's pundit, and we've got Graham Allen, longtime turning point contributor.
Probably, I want to say you were probably one of the original turning point contributors when they started the entire program out.
It's been a long time.
It's been a ride, man.
For sure.
Yeah, I remember because I remember I'd be working at One American News and I would come to cover it and it'd be like you, Anna Paulina, a whole number of people up there with Charlie.
That was like the first generation, you know, the first class.
I'm the new class of the contributors.
It's been quite a ride.
And one of the things, and Graham, maybe I'll even ask you this first.
One of the narratives that people have been asking about this turning point is they say, my gosh, is turning point turning into a food fight?
Is it divisive?
Are people divided?
Are people attacking each other up on stage?
What's going on?
What is your take on that?
I'll just say, that's the outside mainstream narrative of what's going on in here.
So compare that to what you're seeing outside versus what you see here.
Well, I'll compare it to what I've asked the people around here and the feedback that I've been getting from them.
And what I'll say is this: I agree.
I'm all about a good fight.
I love it.
Graham Allen never shied away from a fight.
I have to pray through it because I love awkward fighting too much.
Like that's something about myself.
However, I get it that look, our coalition, our side, everything, we're never going to agree on 100% of everything.
And that's one thing that Charlie did so well: he was able to get people to put the secondary disagreements aside for the mission first purpose of, hey, and Charlie behind the scenes on stage, you know this, Jack.
Charlie would never tell anyone what to say.
However, he would challenge them to perhaps think about how to deliver it differently.
He would say, okay, I know you're really passionate about this, but have you thought about if you say it like that, is that going to lead to the actual outcome that you want it to be?
And I thought that's something that Charlie did really well.
And so what I will say now is this.
I get it.
We got people in our movement that they don't agree on a lot of things.
And I think we have to be honest with ourselves.
There is infighting going on right now.
We've seen it live on the stage.
People throwing daggers, this and that.
My question is this.
I'm all about finding out the issues.
I think Blake said this yesterday.
Fighting out now in December instead of in November.
I got it.
But my question is this.
We're all about debate and open dialogue.
My critique of what's going on right now is: are we actually having debates or are we actually dropping quote-unquote truth grenades of whatever side that we're having the problems on?
And then we're walking off the stage and we're getting the internet decide.
And then, my question to that is, how does that lead us towards the mission of actually making heaven crowded and securing the midterms?
And so, that's my critique of what we're saying, right?
I think that's a great point.
I think it's a valid point as well.
And I remember Charlie, even at the very last, you know, turning point student action summit, the one that we had in Tampa, which was the very, as it turns out, we didn't know, but it would be the very last turning point event that Charlie would be at, that he held a debate on, and he moderated on the issue of Israel.
And he had Dave Smith, he had Josh Hammer, two very strong believers, different side of the issue.
But, you know, I believe two people who are willing to come at that and have that healthy debate.
And Charlie said, let's facilitate it.
Let's have that conversation.
Let people decide for themselves.
He didn't tell either of them what to say.
He didn't tell anybody what to think, but he said, let's have the debate because I believe his idea was to keep the coalition together.
And as you said, we need to focus on the main mission, winning the midterms and defeating the radical left.
Rich Barris, you look at this from a polling perspective.
You see the media narrative of, oh, there's this division at turning point, division in the coalition, the fracture.
Was Charlie Kirk the 10 pole holding it up?
I think that personally, I think we saw a lot of this going on prior to Charlie's death.
As a matter of fact, we did.
And as unfortunate as it is, the last couple of weeks of his life were actually focused on dealing with this division.
And then what happened was his mitigating presence was lost.
So those divisions just flared up and spilled out into the public.
But I just, I know from, you know, being behind the scenes or being able to help wherever I could that those divisions already existed.
So Rich, talk to me about are these divisions legitimate?
Are they real?
Do you see it in the polling numbers when it comes out to voters?
These things that we talk about, Israel, these things that we talk about, Charlie Kirk's murder itself, some of these other issues that have come up on stage, where do we see that as the actual electorate?
So I'm glad you said that part of it, though, because I think that gets lost in the media narrative.
It does.
It does.
That this was going on when Charlie was still alive.
He was just glue.
And without his presence, it left a bit of a void.
And I felt like Charlie was in the middle of the tug of war in many ways.
And now we're at, I think, a point where because of that absence, that is happening a little bit early and a little bit premature, right?
This is a midterm season, right?
We could be having this debate in the nomination process for 28.
It would be more productive to keep the coalition together and make sure everybody remembers you still have to defeat the Democrats.
But from a polling perspective, this was going to happen.
This is a huge age thing.
We have the old wing of the old guard of the Republican Party.
And let's, I mean, look, I'm not assuming this to throw any bombs.
I'm saying, let's use the representations.
You have, you know, this Shapiro and crowd kind of wing of the Republican Party.
And then you have, and I'm not sure he would even cast himself this way, but you have Tucker being used.
And this is really just a proxy battle for the future coming up in 28.
Who's going to be the nominee?
The direction the party is going to go in.
The fact of the matter is, I think some people have to understand the age demographics of this.
Younger voters, younger right-wing voters are more mad.
They're not isolationists, but they are more MAGA.
And that's because they feel so deeply the dire threat to their own future and their own ability to live the American dream.
You do see this massive age signal with under 45, under 50, whatever, however demographic bucket you want to put it in.
So it was bound to happen, Jack.
It was going to happen.
And I think.
Well, and I see this with younger voters all the time.
I think we said earlier, what did we say, under 50?
Under 50.
The under 50, under 40 crowd is when it comes to a lot of the foreign policy stuff, they'll say, yeah, okay, but what about me?
What about us?
What are you doing for us?
What are we getting out of this?
And so when they say America first, they don't necessarily mean that, like you say, that we have to recede from the world and be isolationists and do all this, but they would like to see more of a prioritization on the issues of Americans, the issues of veterans, and rather than this foreign policy push that they feel for so long had been the focus of the Republican Party.
And oh, by the way, those are the same conditions that led to the rise of MAGA, of Botany, of Donald Trump in the first place in 2016.
So, Graham, I'll toss that back to you because you're in there, you're on the fight right here on Rumble every day.
When you're talking to those people, do they want to go back to the old style Republican Party?
No, nobody wants to go back to the old style.
But again, I've talked about this a lot as people with large platforms.
We have a responsibility to have discernment of what we throw out there and when we throw it out.
That's why I've had problems with a certain female vocal person behind the mic.
That's why I've had questions of some of the things that Tucker does.
I believe Tucker believes in the truth.
I believe Tucker believes in finding out the truth.
I question: do you need to have every single one of your conversations in front of your entire audience, in front of the entire world?
Does that lead to more clarity or more confusion?
No one wants to go back to the old way, but I see it in my audience all the time.
You see it all the time.
This is what we see every single day right now.
We see either you've abandoned Israel or you're a paid Israel shill or you're paid by Qatar to hate Muslims and all this other stuff.
We have allowed this narrative that may or may not be influencing the actual polls, but we're allowing it to pick up more and more steam to where more and more people are becoming more and more isolationist.
And more and more, it is America, not America first, but America only.
And that's what that's that is a real thing that we're talking about.
Here's what I want to ask is, Rich, when you talk, because you, as OL, you're polling voters, you're conducting focus groups all the time.
Here's what I would even ask: is that really being driven by a difference in foreign policy or is it being driven by the anger of feeling that these issues are coming ahead of American economic issues?
It's real.
It's the anger.
I mean, we could see it.
It's been going on for a long time.
It's not new to this fight that everyone's been having inside the movement.
This is something that's been trending like this for many years now.
So I do think that what Graham said, there's validity though, to what Graham said, that there is this other side of that that maybe sees an opportunity to get this fight started now.
I don't know what, I'm not going to assign motives to what they may be thinking, but they, for some reason, view that it's an opportunity to try to hatch this out or even bring it in a totally different direction from where it actually started from with that anger.
So look, I think a great example is the Trump administration.
And this is a reason why a lot of this really came up.
It was regardless of what was going on.
You know, starting in the spring and then going into the summer, there were a lot of these voters who already were angry, who felt like they wanted more out of Donald Trump than what they were getting.
And then Trump got distracted.
And to them, it was a here we go again moment.
Every time we get our president, every time it's our turn, they take it from us.
That is the feeling the voters have.
And honestly, are they wrong?
They're right.
So how are you going?
I mean, that's just a fact.
So, I mean, they're influencers and pundits.
Yeah, I get we have a sway over people, Jack, but they're going to do and think what they're going to do and think based on the reality of their world and their experience.
And we're just, we're here to be, we're here alone for the ride and we're here to be observers and we try to call balls and strikes as we see it.
But I mean, we can exacerbate that public opinion, but I don't think we can create it.
I think that's created by their own reality and their own experience.
Yeah, and I think there's a palpable anger out there.
And I'll just say it, I remember at the last major turning point event, that student action summit, that was right at the same time.
And the first big blowup that you saw regarding this was the Epstein files.
Yes.
And the Epstein files came out.
And by the way, we did get this trove last night.
And I've been running around here at these different events, but I saw, I was able to scroll through a number of things.
My God.
Gross.
Some of the grossest stuff I've ever seen.
They ought to call these the Clinton, the Clinton-Epstein files, by the way, because Bill Clinton's all over there.
And there's some pictures that just from a cursory look at it, those are little kids.
All right.
There's little kids in this stuff, the Epstein files.
And so I don't think anyone would be surprised if we pointed out that the way the Epstein files were treated by the administration was a misstep.
It was a major misstep.
First, they gave out the binders to, you know, myself included, right?
I was in the group with the binders and they give this to us and they say, hey, this is phase one.
And we said, okay, what about phase two?
What about phase three?
Are we going to get more?
And people come to me.
I've talked about it a million times, but I said, look, I went to the White House.
I asked the President of the United States, the Attorney General, Director of the FBI, said, release the Epstein files.
Please do that.
And then they hand us this binder.
And then people say, oh, well, why do you didn't go hard enough?
I said, what else would you want me to do?
I went all the way in and asked for them.
And we got what we got.
Then in the summer, we were told there isn't anything more.
Now here we are.
It's December.
We're getting more.
And as horrible and horrific and disgusting as these files are, and I'm glad that they're out and I'm glad that people fought to get them out.
And I called for them to come out on stage at the last turning point event.
The fact of the matter is it should have been done right away.
They shouldn't have pumped the brakes.
And that really led to this first break, I would say, publicly with these type of voters you're talking about.
I mean, Graham, just young MAGA.
Graham, I'm sure you saw the same sentiment.
Yeah, I mean, you know, I mean, there's still people mad even about this launch because of all the redactions.
There's redactions, right?
There's a lot.
There's a lot of redactions.
And so people want to know.
And, you know, depending on who you ask in the administration right now, even at the highest levels, they will admit that that was a major misstep there.
And they know it.
That was a major misstep.
Same thing with the truth of whether we've got the Epstein files versus the Epstein client list.
We needed to do a better job of messaging than we did, which said, hey, what we should have said was, hey, we're going to go in there, but the Democrats have been in power for the past five or four years.
There's no telling what they have done to this thing.
There may not be a list.
There may not be anything.
We don't know because we haven't been in there yet.
I think the American people would have responded better.
And Bondi, I would say, if you remember, the very first thing that she said was that the files that she saw made her sick to her stomach.
You remember when she said that?
And so I think it was her saying that and then switching, but then suddenly we get from DOJ, there's nothing else to getting these pictures, which made me, I said, wait a minute.
So she must have seen this.
So she knew that this was real, that it was all real.
And let me tell you something.
There are no photos of Donald Trump frolicking in swimming pools with redacted underage girls.
There's photos of Bill Clinton in those swimming pools.
He's in the hot tubs.
He's in the spas with the girls.
And you watch, suddenly the Democrats are all going to stop talking about the Epstein files.
And look, we can't step over the moment when Trump sent that post to those who were frustrated.
And he said, you know what?
This is a hoax.
And if you're not hearing me and you won't just go away and leave me alone, and then I don't want your support anymore.
And we heard people in our own polling going, no, I strongly disapprove.
Okay, elaborate on that.
Why?
Didn't you hear what the president said?
He doesn't want my support anymore.
That happened.
That was real.
So, I mean, I mean to throw shade at the president here, but it was mishandled.
It should have been acknowledged that it was mishandled.
All you had to do was do what Graham just said, which I told multiple people, by the way, at the time.
All you had to do was say, listen, this is the same agency who had the Russia hoax.
This is the same agency who lied about this, right?
Robert Mueller's agency, Jim Comey's agency.
It's going to take us some time to go through all this stuff to make sure innocent people don't get hurt, but we hear you.
I promised you.
I promise you still, I'll get it to you.
Trump has more grace with the American voter than any politician ever.
They would have believed that.
Would you have been able to string them along for four years?
No.
But it would have given you time to go through it.
He handled that.
The whole entire administration handled that about the worst you could possibly handle or mishandle a sensitive situation like the Epstein files with multiple myriad pitfalls.
And instead of trying to course correct, he fired off that tweet telling everybody, and then they, you know, that we don't want the support.
So we can't overlook that.
And then the pivot, and I think this is where Israel is almost a victim of this.
The pivot from that moment to now leave me alone.
I have to deal with Iran for Israel was just a one, two, two-piece the channel of MAGA.
And it was the next month.
It was.
It was the very next month.
And so it made, it gave certain female podcasters ammunition.
It really did.
And by the way, and say Candace, and it's Candace, not, you know, you know, it's not like the name who can't be said or something.
But, and it wasn't just her.
There were a lot of people, I think, in the audience and a lot of people out there, regular folks, good folks, who felt very upset about all of these things and said, wait a minute, this isn't what I voted for.
This isn't what I came out for in 2024.
And it's an example, I would say, that proves Graham's point about how the things people say and the acts that they take can really have an effect on the broader picture.
And I want to put a pin in that because that's so important.
We have to be very careful about all of this.
The other point of contention that beyond that, now the files are out, but it was done in such a way that I don't think President Trump is going to get credit for releasing these, although he does deserve credit.
And this is something that I will always defend and point out.
His administration actually arrested Epstein in 2019.
That was the original Trump administration.
And yet, everybody seems to overlook the fact that Donald Trump is the one who actually brought Epstein to justice.
And depending on how far you believe on this, some people even think it was his administration that killed him.
And honestly, if you followed it.
I'm not saying they did that.
I'm just saying that, you know, wouldn't it logically state that?
Not too many, Jack, not too many people, even as private citizens living in that upper class socialite world, ever said or did anything to challenge Jeffrey Epstein.
No, Trump was literally the only one to say, you know what?
You know, we're not doing this.
You're out of Mar-a-Lago because I'm hearing these stories.
So nobody else can say that.
When you look at Donald Trump's association with Jeffrey Epstein, he comes out cleaner than anyone else that was involved with this guy.
Come out cleaner than Reed Hoffman.
He comes out cleaner than Bill Gates, Larry Summers.
He comes out cleaner than, of course, Bill Clinton, all these people.
And yes, that includes Ehud Barak, who was a prime minister of Israel and who was the head of Israeli intelligence.
All of the, by the way, all of these things are just true.
They're just true.
And if we sit there and try to lie about them and say, oh, you can't talk about that, then guess what?
That's what galvanizes people.
And it's what gives credence to people who believe that perhaps, you know, Israel is controlling all of American thought or all of American politics if you sit there and act like that.
The other piece that I wanted to get into while we still have you guys is that, you know, one of these things now, as horrific as Effrey Epstein's crimes were, they were in the past.
There are victims.
The victims, I believe, are getting reconstitution and reparations now from the estate of Jeffrey Epstein.
By the way, I love to, if there was no Epstein client list, then who's getting all these retribution checks, right?
So clearly, it'd been some kind of victim list.
So there is one case, though, that is currently pending.
And it's something that really burned me up last week when I saw Tyler Robinson walk into that courtroom and he started grinning.
He started smirking.
He started sharing these little smiles with his defense attorney that burned me up, that really burned me up.
And this is a real trial that is ongoing.
There is another hearing that comes up in February.
I believe there's another one that comes up.
The actual arraignment is still pending.
It's going to be later on in the winter.
The actual trial may not start for several months.
But because there has been so much contention over this issue, that I think people have gotten very far away from the actual facts and evidence of the case that show, to my mind, based on everything that I've looked at, that Tyler Robinson was the one who pulled the trigger and murdered our friend Charlie.
No, I agree.
I mean, I do agree in that.
Now, do I also have questions with all these Discord channels and people that had prior knowledge?
Absolutely.
But yeah, I mean, there is more.
If this was any other thing, everybody would be like, yeah, you know, how many times has there been a trans shooter that was involved in one of these cases?
You know, a trans shooter at a school, Nashville, Minneapolis, the trans shooters that we've seen again and again and again.
And we say, yep, that was the person.
But for some reason, this one, everyone says, no, no, it couldn't possibly be him.
Well, not everyone, but certain people.
And again, it goes to the discernment of the things that I'm talking about here.
Candace has just as many connections as we do.
Like she can make the same phone calls we can.
Now, whether or not they'll pick up the phone these days are different.
She can have these conversations.
She could have had a lot of the conversations early on.
These things could have happened early on, but her choosing, along with other people, choosing to take it immediately to social media to let people who actually don't have any idea what's going on.
Now, Candace is even alluding to the fact of, yeah, there are things we don't know because they're not releasing everything that they have to us because I would agree with that.
I would actually agree with that that in these cases, and Rich, I'll bring you in a second, that I would like to see more records, videos, whatever is out there released publicly in the Charlie Kirk murder case.
We know there's more records.
We know there's more videos out there.
People are so sick of being, of the lack of transparency.
You want to get it out there and have it known.
Let the public know.
And Rich, because you've done, and a lot of people may not know this, that not only do you do public polling for politics, you have corporate clients, and that you work from brand management, these types of perspectives, but also you do jury polling in various locales, various jurisdictions.
So on this issue, this question of transparency, I get that the legal system says we don't want to show any evidence until we get to that trial phase, until we get to the probable cause phase.
However, we now live in a 24-7 information environment where the stuff you see on your phone on these little pieces of glass every day is constant.
It is a constant barrage of information.
So my question is, it almost seems like the presupposition has changed from you have to wait until trial to, oh, they're not showing us information.
They must be hiding something.
Do you get what I'm saying?
And do you hear that when you talk to prospective jurors?
Yeah, I do.
And I do think that Charlie's not going to be able to do it.
I'll actually say it's kind of like we saw the CSI effect in the 2000s.
Now I would say we've got the social media effect.
Yeah, and it's much more amplified.
And I think that we will have to find a better way to tackle our authorities.
We're going to have to find a better way to tackle this because you do have podcasters who decide, I think I'm going to live stream an investigation in real time.
And that's what people want.
They want answers fast.
The problem is with that, Jack, I mean, immediately, my major concern was this is going to take it to jury.
All you need is one person who may even look and sit throughout the entire trial and hear the facts, hear the evidence, and decide that maybe I still believe somebody else is not being held accountable here.
And they, God forbid, cast a not guilty verdict.
I mean, this has happened.
We've seen this happen before in high-profile cases.
Look, I think Charlie's case is a little bit different, Jack.
It has to be treated differently.
People on the state side of this are going to have to come to grips with the appetite for information.
Prosecutions.
Yeah, the prosecution side of this.
And by the way, I would remind people again: you know, I don't trust the FBI either, but guess what?
The FBI is not prosecuting this case.
So I hear this repeatedly.
Well, why are you taking the FBI's word for it?
Why do you believe the FBI?
Why are you pushing that Fed slot?
Why are you pushing the Fed slot?
Why are you pushing Fed slob?
The FBI is not prosecuting this case.
This is a state case.
All right.
So again, I don't want to say it's like almost a matter of national security interest, but there is, this was the most high-profile assassination in our lifetime.
Political assassination plan.
You have to share more.
You have to try to do better.
I get it.
So in the future, though, we do have to, on our side of it, that's when the state side, from our side of it, we do have to think about what Grant said at the very beginning of this, which is we do have a responsibility here.
I mean, we can go back to OJ.
There was a witness in the OJ case.
They saw him pull away.
But by the time the prosecution ever got around to try to use that witness, she had been all over the media and all over all these other people who had other theories of the case.
And her testimony was garbage.
It was incredible.
It was never admissible in court.
It was never brought up in court.
So we also have to do better.
I get everybody's want and desire for information, but take that to the proper channels.
Take that to the property.
Don't take it to your podcast audience and start talking because you really can't take the jury.
I don't even go out so far as to say, you know, there are even medical records that potentially could be released.
A lot of people have questions about the ballistics in this.
Let's get a ballistics report out.
You say, what was recovered, right?
We know that we can do this.
And yeah, it is morbid for me to be sitting here in Amfest and talking about a guy who was my friend and talking about a guy who did get shot in the neck in front of so many people.
But if there's questions about the ballistics, you can release a ballistics report and you can have that out and you can have people say, all right, this was the bullet that was recovered.
We have it.
We have it in custody.
It's going to be entered in.
Let's just release that.
Turns out bullets do do strange things.
They do do weird things, right?
Because that's a whole other line of questioning people.
Yeah.
And so, but I mean, that would be a good question.
I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant here on a lot of this.
I really do.
I would also add that beyond that, beyond that, you mentioned the FBI angle and all do you trust the FBI?
And I said, well, here's the thing.
You don't have to rely on the FBI on this, if that's your hangup, because I've, you know, certainly have questions as well and concerns, but it wasn't the FBI who identified Tyler Robinson.
Tyler Robinson was identified after 33 hours when the local campus police, I'm sorry, they completely failed that day.
There's no question.
The local Orem Police Department was kept at arm's length.
They weren't allowed to fly their drones.
And, you know, who knows what would have happened if they did, right?
I don't like to go down that road because you can't do that in this lifetime.
But, you know, who knows?
But Tyler Robinson was turned in by his mother and father, right?
It was his mom and dad who turned him in.
And I don't know any mom and dad that are going to pick up their phone and make that phone call if they're not sure that their kid did something wrong.
Because they knew this was a case where the president of the United States had said, I want the death penalty.
And you're going to turn your son over.
And my boys are here today.
I can't even imagine.
It's an incredible decision.
It actually speaks to the goodness of Heartland America and the goodness of Christian American fathers and mothers that they were able to do that.
And I think it's totally overlooked and overshadowed.
And oh, by the way, those parents did come to that courtroom where he was smiling and laughing.
In the Navy, we would say coking and joking.
I don't know if you guys say that in the Army, you say coking and joking.
No, it's must be a Navy.
That's the Navy saying, okay.
But you know, all right, all right.
But yeah, it's a it's a squibby thing.
I squid say it.
But at no point during that hearing did the mother or father go over and the media was all there.
Brian Enton was there from News Nation.
I think he's a good guy.
At no point did they walk over and say, hey, you need to tell the truth because my son didn't do this.
They were there for hours, hours and hours and hours, and you don't see a single family member coming out.
And look, I'm not saying that's dispositive, but I am saying there's a dog that's not barking here.
The New York Times just did an article.
Washington Post.
They interviewed the friends.
But they did.
And as it turns out, this is a major lost opportunity for us to talk about political violence.
In the wake of Charlie's assassination, we conducted a large study that got no attention at all, with the exception of a couple of times you and I discussed it, right?
When we mentioned the transgender angle before, we went into all of this.
And now I'll just end up winding up putting it out for everybody to see, Jack, but there's something very real there.
And I think the one thing that I, myself, that I want to know most of all is what Grant said.
What about those Discord messages?
I just did this research.
I know now how much more likely these subgroup demographic groups, trans, right?
How much more likely they are to accept acts of political violence because they themselves feel like they're in danger of something.
So they don't view words and violence any differently.
They don't distinguish the two.
So I want to know what was said in those text messages.
Actually, I got to, on that, full credit, Dr. Chloe Carmichael, she's absolutely brilliant on this.
She said her theory is, having looked at the clinical psychologist, her theory was, you know how they do the etchings into the bullets of the words?
Think of it, the combining of words and violence.
So what they've done, because they view Charlie's words as violence directed at them, what did they do?
And we saw what Maggioni wrote into the bullets.
The anti-ice shooter down in Dallas wrote into the bullets.
Tyler Rittenhouse wrote on the bullets.
What have they done?
It's a pathology.
It's a pathology where they make literal violent words, violent words.
So Graham, talk to us about the danger of missing this rise of political violence.
Well, the first thing I want to add to everything that you guys do.
And so what I would say is this.
I think that we live in a world where social media works faster than the justice system.
And again, I think that we as commentators, all of us, myself included, I had this conversation with the vice president probably a week and a half ago.
We did a bad job and we have continued to do a bad job in letting the American people think that once we won that election, that within 90 days, everything was just going to be fine and everything was going to be great.
And now we have a situation, the most high-profile political assassination of our generation, where I think that people believe that because we have social media, that in their homes, they should have every piece of evidence and every piece of everything in this case immediately, right now.
And that's just not the way that it works.
Now, granted, are there some exceptions for some releases to calm heated things down because of high profileness?
Sure.
But the vast majority of evidence, data, all this other kind of stuff, that's not the normal way that it happens.
And this is, by the way, this is what you're talking about is that disconnect that Rich was saying that people's perceptions have been so changed by, as you say, by that social media environment, by true crime podcasts, by all of these things, that there's a difference of expectation.
And when people's expectations aren't met, that's what this is like relationships as well, right?
When your expectations aren't met, that's what leads to anger, disappointment, dissension.
Correct.
And because of that, it is now taking away from us having the real conversation, to your point, which is the rise in political violence, which is the reality that those of us that do this for a living, our overhead costs just went up 5x because we all have to figure out, like, okay, I want to go out and do this speaking event.
Do I have to pay a million dollars a year for security and all these things just to have conversations?
It is a terrible place that we're finding ourselves in, which is what they want.
Which is what they want.
And off-putted time for an applause there, but either way, that's what they want.
And it's because of we have not done a, we have not done a proper job of letting the American people know: hey, I've seen this a lot to the point about the feds and our administration.
Oh, we just trust the administration now.
Oh, we just trust the feds now.
We just do this and we do that.
Well, we did when we voted for Donald Trump in November, November 5th of 2024.
We all agree that Charlie Kirk was a once in a lifetime leader, brilliant, Christ-driven human being that was responsible for probably 90% of the people that are in these positions now.
And so you can't hold two positions to where you believe that Charlie Kirk was a once-in-a-generation leader of our movement, of our party, of people, of Americans, of young voters, and then also believe that he had the worst discernment and judge of character of any human being that has ever walked.
No, and I love discernment too, because there were people, right?
And by the way, I'm perfectly happy to follow the evidence wherever the evidence lies.
And that's what Charlie was about, standing on truth.
You have to always stand on truth.
And I'm not afraid to call out and say, I talked about the USS Liberty yesterday.
I'm not afraid to talk about Israel.
I'm not afraid to say that I don't agree with everything the government of Israel does.
You could talk about Gaza.
We could talk about all those things, but do so with evidence.
Do so with truth.
I've talked many times about how I think that the government of Israel in their conduct of the war in Gaza did not do a good enough job of protecting churches, of protecting Christians and places of worship that are located within Gaza.
I really believe that that's a huge problem and has created bigger problems for them.
That being said, there were people who said that Charlie was killed by Israel before his body even made it to the hospital.
That is not standing on evidence.
That is taking something that is a preconceived notion, a preconceived bias that you are trying to put and paint on your situation because it's pushing an agenda.
And that's not right.
That is not right.
And then doing that and sharing personal messages, you may have like all this.
I haven't shared a single personal message between myself and Charlie, and you're not going to see me do that.
You're never doing that.
You're just not going to see me do that.
Thank you.
If he sent me something in private, then that was meant in private.
And confidence is something you keep going.
You're violating this man's privacy post-humanist.
It makes, it bothers me.
I haven't actually said that out loud till right now.
But it's actually.
Let's not do that to make our own points.
I will say this.
I will say this.
I try to have grace because I know there's a lot of people that are going through trauma that went through trauma in those early days who were literally had their whole life turned upside down.
Not just obviously, you know, the business colleagues and friends, but let's try to remember that at the end of the day, this isn't about how it affects political movement.
It isn't how it affects a podcast career or you get more followers, subscribers, whatever.
Erica and those children are his family.
They're not going to have a father that's home for this Christmas or any Christmas coming forward.
And we should respect them and think about what is best, the best way to respect them in everything that we do.
Because that to me is way more important than scoring some political points or getting more viewers on my podcast or whatever it is.
And, you know, if people want to get mad at me for saying that, then let them get mad because I know what I'm saying is right.
No, it is right.
It's 100%.
There's a human side of this story.
It's not just a political story or a story about a movement and factions.
And there's a human being about a family and children.
And you just said it.
And I would just think, just put yourself in someone else's shoes for a moment.
I don't think I'd want my kids reading that years later.
You know, just have a little bit of it.
It just has always bothered me just to be able to know, look, I had this message and I had, it's crazy.
It's unseemly.
No, what I'd like to, I mean, and I said this before, but, you know, I feel obviously horrible that Charlie's kids are never going to be able to really have that relationship with their dad.
But in a sense, too, they're going to have a relationship with sort of their digital father, right?
Like his digital footprint, his videos, his speeches, his debates.
And that was his public work, but that wasn't Charlie.
You know what I mean?
Like that wasn't Charlie the man.
That wasn't Charlie the father, the husband.
And obviously, you know, he put his heart in his work.
There's no question about that.
But, you know, and I've got my little kids and, you know, I just hope that someday, if they ever want to, you know, I'm more than happy to just answer every question they want.
I let them know, hey, I knew your dad.
This is what he was like outside of the podcast, outside of the text messages, outside of all that nonsense.
This is what he really was like.
This is what really drove him.
And this is who your dad was.
And, you know, when you have one of your battle buddies go down like that, you know, there's there isn't really a playbook for that.
There isn't really a manual, but you just try to do the right thing by his family, I think.
Just do the right thing by his family.
Yeah, I couldn't agree more.
And you will be there, Jack.
I mean, that's great.
You know, again, you see it a lot, a lot more different than, I guess, some of the other people that have chose to make this play out publicly and in front of everybody.
You know, so in the future, man, I'm asking Grammy, what could we do better?
Not to steal your, I'm just like wondering your thoughts here.
What could we do better?
Do we as podcasters need to start growing more like the true?
And I don't mean this in that way, but in the traditional media, do we need our own version of an AP handbook?
Well, I mean, we have to decide why, why are we doing what we do now in the first place?
Are we doing what we do now because we want to make money?
Are we doing what we do now because we want to be the most popular one?
Are we doing what we want to do now because we believe that we have influence and because we have influence, we should be using that to our agendas and what we think.
And, you know, and I think there's a lot of people right now.
I've heard it on the stage by a lot of really big name people.
I think, I feel, I, you know, I think, I feel.
I've heard it over and over and over and over again these past two days.
I don't care what you think and what you feel.
I care about what's true and what's not true.
And what I know that is true right now is that if we don't figure out this infighting that we've got going on right now, we're not going to do well in these midterms.
And Charlie would be the first one to be getting a hold of that.
Charlie Kirk would have called a massive meeting of the minds right here in Phoenix.
And he would have had everybody fly in.
He would have been like, all right, patch it out.
We are in trouble in these midterms.
If we don't figure this out, it is on us.
to lead people in the right direction for mission first.
How do we figure out how to all come together, even though we're not going to agree on everything?
If Charlie's not going to be here, then it's really as simple as that.
Let's do that in Charlie's name.
Let's do it for Charlie.
We ask you.
Remember what the mission is and remember that we are more.
There is more that unites us than divides us.
There is more that we understand.
Our patriotism, our love of God, our love of Jesus, these are the things that unite us.
And while there will be divisions, though there will be issues where we disagree, we can do that in such a way where we maintain that grace, but we also don't lose sight of what the greater mission is.
Graham Allen, where can people go and follow you, brother?
Just Google Graham Allen.
It's either good or really bad, and you'll find it on there.
Rich Barris, People's Pundit.
Yeah, we're all over the place, Jack.
You know, on Getter, on Twitter, the best places on locals, peoplespundant.locals.com.locals.com.
All right, folks, follow me at HumanEvents Daily is the show every day.
Jack Pasovic, and I'll be on stage here in just a couple hours.
Thank you so much for this live special edition of Human Events Am Fest Rumble Special.
▲
Export Selection