00:00:00.000Hey everybody, Dan of Charlie Kirk Show, Citizen Kane with incredibly sharp commentary and Will Scharf as well, who's running for Attorney General of Missouri.
00:00:49.000He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.
00:00:55.000We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
00:02:55.000It's going to be the summer of indictments.
00:02:57.000You were way, you had far more clarity on this than almost every one of these talking heads on television or these people that say, oh, Donald Trump will never be indicted.
00:03:34.000And I have to think that these other journalists, I don't know if they just don't take the time to think these things through, but it was obvious that it was coming in Manhattan and what was coming in Georgia.
00:03:43.000And we both saw two indictments from potential indictments from Jack Smith.
00:03:50.000So we were just, you know, thinking ahead, I think.
00:04:36.000I think it's also going to be, I mean, Jack Smith has multiple ones, right?
00:04:38.000He has the documents and then he has January 6th.
00:04:41.000Fannie Willis is a complete deranged lunatic in Fortin County.
00:04:46.000But it depends which case does Jack Smith want.
00:04:50.000I mean, Jack Smith wants to get points on the board before ballots go out in October.
00:04:54.000He does not want, he wants Donald Trump to be a convicted felon before ballots go out.
00:04:59.000And this is, again, this is something super important.
00:05:02.000If you look at the length, this is why, you know, some people who watch our program, they say, Charlie, you spend too much time quoting MSNBC.
00:05:10.000And I want your thoughts on this, Kane.
00:05:12.000You spend too much time quoting Morning Joe.
00:06:04.000So we're posting these links so people know what's going on.
00:06:07.000I want to say really quickly, before you say this, I want to say really quickly about Yahoo because people get me, you know, Kane, why are you linking to Yahoo?
00:06:14.000People need to understand that I'm trying to give, number one, I'm trying to find sources that have no pop-ups, that have no paywalls, that have no firewalls, and all kinds of sources from the Washington Post to Bloomberg to Business Insider, sort of good lefty sources that give you an idea of what Democrats are planning.
00:06:46.000Almost every story I find, I have to, I do multiple searches to try to find the absolute best source, the source that, you know, anyway, so it's interesting that you brought that up because it's something I think about all the time because people are always complaining about why are you posting these mainstream sources?
00:07:02.000So just so people understand, Charlie and I are showing you this stuff so you know what's coming.
00:07:16.000Understand that when someone goes on MSNBC, like that lunatic historian, and he compares half the country and the election of Donald Trump to Pearl Harbor, 9-11, all that, it's not just something he woke up at 5 a.m. and it's like, I'm going to go on Morning Joe and say this.
00:07:29.000This is a reflection of conversation that happens at the Aspen Ski Lift.
00:07:36.000This is conversation that happens at the restaurants in Jackson Hole that high society is having at their dinners in downtown Manhattan.
00:07:45.000So you get little crumbs and little windows and little mirrors, especially when Mika and Joe just start spitting off.
00:07:51.000This is stuff that has been workshopped.
00:07:53.000Therefore, Kane, are you, and I want to be honest with you, I want you to be 100% honest.
00:07:58.000Have you seen the action, the investment that is going to allow us to see where it's going, not throw where the receiver is, to use a football analogy because football is heating up, but where the receiver is going.
00:08:08.000Have you seen the evidence yet, Citizen Kane, that the right has wargamed or whiteboarded what is happening in our country right now to potentially defeat these people in November of 2024?
00:08:27.000So who's, you know, so who's trying to sort of fill that void?
00:08:31.000I feel like really, you know, there are some good shows, but I really feel like War Room with Bannon and your show are the only two that every single day are getting into it and getting into, as you said, sort of what's coming.
00:09:17.000And unfortunately, most of the, let's call it the corporate money is on the rhino side.
00:09:22.000So the RNC has access to the huge donors and these and the people that they could, you know, if Rona McDaniel were really concerned about these things, she should have multiple programs laid out.
00:09:32.000For example, what TPUSA has done, and I've mentioned it before, giving $5 million to Scott Pressler for Wisconsin is a beautiful way to start.
00:13:09.000He's, you know, his campaign every week, it gets a little bit worse.
00:13:14.000His numbers are not, they're not growing, they're shrinking.
00:13:18.000So he's a little bit, he's a little bit at risk of becoming the next Scott Walker.
00:13:23.000If you remember what happened in 2016, immediately, you know, and so I think that DeSantis, who has to be one of the three or four best potential candidates for 2028, is risking all of this by staying in the race.
00:13:37.000He continues to get destroyed on Twitter, destroyed on social media by the sort of the Trump influencers, and it's not a good look for him.
00:13:46.000You had yesterday's Drudge Report leading with the empty seats, the empty venue in Iowa that he was speaking to.
00:13:52.000And then also DeSantis' largest donor, right?
00:13:55.000This hotel entrepreneur who gave in $20 million, that guy has announced that he's not going to be giving any more money to DeSantis unless he starts bringing in other donations or moderates his positions.
00:14:08.000The article is up, that 20 million donation article is up on CFP, if people want to read it.
00:14:13.000But my point is: so, how can he flip the script?
00:14:16.000And I haven't really thought about it until what you said.
00:14:23.000He could prevent himself from becoming an also ran and, you know, an afterthought.
00:14:28.000He could do all of this, plus, donate this $130 million, not to Trump, but to what TPUSA and other conservative groups are attempting to do to help win these seven swing states.
00:14:44.000Because that's, you know, I've been going for two minutes and I want to let you get in, but we know that's where it's all coming down to.
00:14:50.000This is going to be an incredibly close race.
00:15:13.000The Democrats sued, unless there's another bioweapon deployed on the American people, which, by the way, don't get too comfortable, people.
00:15:19.000There might be something happening in 2024: Color Revolution, Floyd Apalooza, Trans Floyd.
00:15:24.000I'm just saying that in election years, it just so happens that really crazy, wild things tend to happen.
00:15:29.000But Green Party, Kane, if anyone is telling you, oh, I'm telling you, Trump is going to lose in all this, you cannot even design an algorithm that can predict what four candidates on the ballot in Arizona is going to look like, period.
00:15:41.000You have no labels, cinema running as an independent, Joe Biden, Trump, and Cornell West.
00:15:48.000In fact, I think the smart money would be on Trump, but you need to get into the boring stuff.
00:15:51.000You have to invest in the boring voter reg, the boring precinct by precinct.
00:15:55.000And by the way, all these articles out there, where is Joe Biden's campaign?
00:15:58.000You know where all that money's going?
00:15:59.000The Cabal, Soros, Lorene Powell Jobs, Mackenzie Bezos, Reid Hoffman, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, all of the billionaire oligarchs, they're sitting not in smoke-filled rooms, but in vegan-filled coffee tables, right, in Silicon Valley and Napa Valley, saying, you know what, we need to go deploy money in these states.
00:16:16.000Meanwhile, we're worrying about who's going to finish fourth place in Iowa.
00:17:02.000Outside of it, you mentioned cinema in Arizona.
00:17:06.000I know that was sort of a tangent from you, but yeah, that's just going to be, you know, that's going to be crazy with her running as an individual.
00:17:12.000With her running as an Adam Bennett, there's no way anyone can game out any of this.
00:17:16.000We're going to see more and more, more and more evidence of what you described in 2020, how Democrats, it wasn't just COVID, as you said, it was lawsuits.
00:17:23.000It was different things that the DNC did to keep the Green Party.
00:17:26.000They're going to do a color revolution.
00:17:28.000And by the way, the right is so unsophisticated.
00:17:31.000I ask billionaires, I ask consultants, so, hey, guys, what do you think the color revolution in 24 is going to be?
00:19:11.000He's been a total blessing to the conservative movement with his clear commentary and honestly, his very, very talented rebuttals, effective rebuttals, I should say, of the regime.
00:19:21.000Will Sharf, who is running for Attorney General of Missouri, and I sure hope he's successful.
00:19:39.000So, first of all, Charlie, as always, thanks for having me on.
00:19:43.000This new indictment against President Trump in Washington, D.C. is based on flawed legal premises.
00:19:50.000As numerous other commentators have already said, the timing of it is deeply politically suspect.
00:19:56.000My point, though, is that when you actually look at the indictment, when you look at the charges, when you look at the facts that Jack Smith is apparently relying on to press this indictment, this is a case that's built on a foundation of sand.
00:20:13.000This is a case that, as we've seen with Jack Smith time and time again, he's relying on wildly overbroad interpretations of federal statutes to attempt to shoehorn political speech and other non-culpable conduct into a criminal prosecution.
00:20:32.000That's contrary to our traditions of the rule of law, fair and unbiased prosecution in this country.
00:20:38.000And that's really what got me speaking out against what's going on here.
00:20:43.000Yeah, so let's start with the first one, which, again, I'm a layman, but I also wasn't born yesterday.
00:20:48.000I've seen a fair amount of federal indictments.
00:20:50.000And I read a lot more than I used to, Will, because a lot of people in the conservative orbit keep on getting indicted.
00:20:56.000So you just, by result of my profession, you just keep on reading indictments.
00:21:00.000The first one in your article, The Federalist, it's a terrific piece I want to point people to, is this idea of almost thought crimes.
00:21:06.000And, you know, we have a show in Don Rumble where we joke around that thought crimes are coming next, that you're not even allowed to think the wrong thing.
00:21:13.000But so much of this indictment is centered on Trump's alleged state of mind that somehow what he was thinking, that now what happens in your brain is somehow you're able to then put people in jail for having the wrong thoughts.
00:21:30.000Is that an unfair categorization, Will Sharf?
00:21:33.000No, I think it's pretty close to the reality, Charlie, and we're truly living in scary times.
00:21:42.000If President Trump thought that the election had been illegally stolen, if he thought that the allegations he was making about the election were true, I believe that's an absolute defense or close to an absolute defense against all four charges that have been brought here.
00:21:59.000So what we have here is Jack Smith, and it's paragraph two of the indictment.
00:22:04.000His view is that the election wasn't stolen.
00:22:06.000He's attempting to prosecute President Trump for believing the opposite.
00:22:10.000Now, that's not grounds for a criminal prosecution.
00:22:14.000You can't just say that because you disagree with the guy that he should go to prison.
00:22:18.000That's not the way things work in America.
00:22:20.000But if you look at the indictment, if you look at what they're required to prove in the indictment, it's clear to me, it's clear to other legal commentators who have weighed in.
00:22:29.000If President Trump was under the belief that this election had been stolen and the actions he was taking were necessary, required, proper, and legally valid, then there is no case here.
00:22:41.000Yeah, and it's just, it's protected speech.
00:22:43.000And also, you're allowed to petition your government, right?
00:22:46.000Not only that, it's explicitly put in the First Amendment.
00:22:50.000There's not some, it's not an abstraction.
00:22:52.000You're allowed to question state legislatures, question election results.
00:22:56.000We have a 12-minute, we're not going to play it, obviously.
00:22:58.000We have a 12-minute clip that we put on social media of Democrats questioning election results.
00:23:01.000And honestly, you should be allowed to question election results.
00:23:05.000And I hate to put it this way, but this is almost religious, theocratic type behavior by the regime where the election is almost like the state-run religion, where you can't think something.
00:23:18.000Am I off base by even getting there, Will?
00:23:40.000But I mean, challenging the results of elections goes back to really the founding era.
00:23:45.000You go to the 1824 election where Andrew Jackson believed with at least some validity that he'd been robbed by a corrupt bargain between Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams.
00:23:56.000Rutherford B. Hayes in the Reconstruction era, they called him Rutherfraud for years because of alleged irregularities in the electoral count that year.
00:24:05.000I mean, this is something that's gone on time and time again in American history.
00:24:10.000And Jack Smith is trying to turn what's really, you know, as you said, thought crime, President Trump disagreeing with the way that election had been conducted into a criminal conspiracy.
00:24:23.000And that's just not how the law works.
00:24:26.000And you're allowed to push back against your government.
00:24:30.000You're allowed to believe silly things.
00:24:32.000And just think of other thought crimes that we've lived through, Will, because this is nothing new.
00:24:36.000It was a thought crime to say that the virus came from a laboratory, not from some Himalayan bat.
00:24:43.000It was a thought crime, literally, where I got banned on social media to say that the Hunter Biden laptop was legitimate.
00:24:50.000We had to believe for an election season that it was Russian disinformation.
00:24:54.000So the regime has been conditioning us through wrongthink, criminal prosecution, wrongthink, social media censorship.
00:25:01.000And I lived through it on a, again, a far less consequential landscape on the college campus stuff, Will.
00:25:06.000When I go to college campuses, which is something I know that you care a lot about, Free Speech Warrior, and why you're running for Missouri Attorney General, these campuses, if you disagree with the orthodoxy of the high priest of the university, you shouldn't be allowed to come on college campus.
00:25:22.000So this entire regime is built around smaller, different patterns.
00:25:29.000If they're successful, Will Sharf, what will this mean for the future of the First Amendment?
00:25:32.000What sort of precedent would this set?
00:25:36.000Yeah, the left-wingers who run the deep state, run Washington, D.C., and their allies in the mainstream media want us all to sit down and shut up.
00:25:52.000They think they own every aspect of our lives.
00:25:55.000And any dissent will not be tolerated.
00:25:57.000Now, just coming back to the legal point here, if President Trump believed the theories that he and his team were pushing out there, if he believed that they were meritorious, if he believed that there had been fraud along the lines of what he suggested, and there is evidence that there was a ton of fraud that was not investigated, that was not fully brought to light.
00:26:18.000If he believed those things, I believe that's an absolute defense to certainly some of, if not all four charges brought in this most recent indictment.
00:26:28.000I mean, they are alleging a criminal conspiracy.
00:26:30.000Criminal conspiracies, I talk about this in my article, under some of the charges that have been brought, they need to prove specific intent.
00:26:37.000They need to prove that President Trump's intent was depriving voters of their right to vote.
00:26:42.000Now, if President Trump's intent was validating what he believed was accurate theories of election fraud, then that's an absolute defense.
00:26:52.000And he cannot be convicted under the charges that form this indictment.
00:26:57.000Now, that's just an outrageous thing to have happen here.
00:27:01.000They are attempting to criminalize political dissent.
00:27:03.000They're attempting to criminalize election challenges in advance of the 2024 election.
00:27:10.000We're at the very cutting edge here of a very dangerous movement, a very dangerous moment in American history.
00:27:17.000Yeah, and I want to also emphasize the prosecution is going to have to their whole case.
00:27:24.000Again, there is not a witness that I could imagine would be telling the truth where that Donald Trump would be like, I really know there was no fraud.
00:27:30.000Having spent private time extensively with President Trump, he 100% believes that there is fraud in the 2020 election.
00:27:39.000To this day, it's not some sort of shtick.
00:27:41.000It's not some sort of theatrical play.
00:27:43.000He believes at his core that the election was stolen from him.
00:28:14.000Three of the four counts are conspiracy charges.
00:28:17.000So they need to prove that the people that President Trump was allegedly conspiring with also believe that the theories they were pushing were false.
00:28:25.000Whether that's John Eastman or Sidney Powell or any of the other folks implicated by this indictment, the proof that they need to offer here is so extravagant, is so extreme.
00:28:36.000This indictment should have never been brought.
00:28:38.000And the fact that they're trying to ram it through in a D.C. courtroom in front of basically a hand-picked liberal judge in front of presumably a hand-picked far-left jury tells you everything you need to know about this case.
00:28:51.000They are terrified of the idea that this case could end up in West Virginia or in a court where President Trump could get a fair shake.
00:29:06.000So it's a heavy lift because a lot of the actions that they're talking about occurred in Washington, D.C., and a lot of the witnesses are going to be in Washington, D.C. That'll be a motion that will be filed in the district court here.
00:29:18.000But ultimately, this case is going to end up on appeal, probably, certainly in front of the D.C. circuit, probably in front of the Supreme Court.
00:29:25.000And if the judge just decides to steamroll over legitimate legal challenges, both to the case itself and to the way that it's conducted, she's going to have to answer to higher courts there.
00:29:36.000And that's where I think this case is going.
00:29:41.000What do you anticipate then from this judge when it comes to a gag order?
00:29:45.000Typically, and then let's say there is a gag order and Trump ignores it or defies it.
00:29:51.000Yeah, so normally in a case like this, what you would see is the prosecution would file a proposed protective order.
00:30:00.000President Trump's lawyers would have an opportunity to respond to it in their own time.
00:30:05.000And you'd see this proceed along a normal pathway.
00:30:08.000What happened here, Jack Smith's team filed this thing on a Friday.
00:30:13.000President Trump's team asked for time to respond.
00:30:16.000The judge then almost summarily denied that, said that they had until basically close a business on Friday to get their answer on file, and she's going to make her decision at 5 p.m. Eastern today.
00:30:29.000It's just, it's an incredibly short timeframe to litigate the very real legal issues around the validity of this order.
00:30:37.000The scary thing to me is that if this is going to be her approach to sitting in judgment over what may be one of the most consequential cases in American history, it portends very ill for the state of democracy, the state of rule of law in this country.
00:30:52.000It's really scary that a presidential candidate, a former president, could basically be told by a judge, sit down and shut up at the height of a presidential election that some polls show that he's winning decisively.
00:31:07.000It's crazy to me that this is happening today in an American courtroom.
00:31:11.000And so, but if Donald Trump were to, let's say, ignore a, let's just say, very sternly written gag order, could the judge then have him arrested?
00:31:19.000I mean, federal judges have potential arrest authority, right?
00:31:23.000Yeah, that would open him up to potential contempt charges.
00:31:27.000It would open up a lot of, let's say, it would open up a Pandora's box of bad legal outcomes.
00:31:33.000But I think that's the plan here, that they brought this indictment.
00:31:37.000President Trump has called it election interference.
00:31:39.000I think there's a lot of truth to that.
00:31:41.000They brought this indictment at a fraught time, at a dangerous time, at a time when the election season is kicking off.
00:31:48.000And now they're telling President Trump that he can't even talk about what they're doing to him.
00:31:52.000He can't talk about this case that's been brought against him, that he can't even hold in his hand some of the discovery documents that they're going to be turning over to him.
00:32:02.000They're depriving him of, I believe, a right to make a, you know, his right to exercise, you know, the First Amendment to speak politically about political issues, and they're crippling his legal defense.
00:32:33.000There is a fear that Donald Trump and his movement is such a threat at the ballot box that they have to try to prevent that from ever happening.
00:32:40.000Justin Amash, who I think has totally lost his mind the last couple of years, has actually had a really important tweet.
00:32:47.000And I'm going to just read parts of it.
00:32:48.000I may not like Trump, but I love our Constitution, so I feel compelled to speak out.
00:32:51.000The latest indictment, which I encourage you all to read, attempts to criminalize Trump's routine misstatements of fact.
00:32:57.000But this is precisely the sort of wrong that must be addressed politically under our constitution, not criminally.
00:33:04.000He says, look, politicians are constantly misguided and just plain mistaken about a lot of things, but does not mean they should be put in jail for it.
00:33:12.000He says, in America, we do not imprison them.
00:33:45.000It's sad, and I'll be honest, most conservatives have no idea really how to react to this.
00:33:52.000It's intentionally aggressive because they are super worried that they cannot replicate the irregularities that happened in 2020, as Molly Ball wrote in Time magazine.
00:34:05.000Yeah, look, when you look at what happened in Michigan, what happened in Pennsylvania, when you look at the Zuckerbucks issue, the 2020 election was, I believe, the most wildly irregular election in American history.
00:34:18.000We can't let that happen again in 2024.
00:34:21.000And this whole indictment, in my view, is an effort at forcing us all to shut up about it, forcing us all to sit down and just accept it.
00:34:36.000It's an attack on our traditions, our customs, everything that we've overcome for a decent society, separation of powers, consent to the governed.
00:34:42.000It's all under attack by a Maoist, illegitimate regime that hates you and your values.
00:34:47.000Will Sharf doing a great job running for Missouri.
00:34:49.000Attorney General will have you on again.