The Charlie Kirk Show - The Leak That Could Shatter the Supreme Court with Mike Davis

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, what does the Supreme Court leak mean for our country?

00:00:04.000 We dive into that with Mike Davis from the Article 3 project and also Alejandro Mayorkis defends the new disinformation effort.

00:00:12.000 You can email me your thoughts as alwaysfreedom at charliekirk.com and get involved with turningpointusa at tpusa.com.

00:00:18.000 tpusa.com is your place where you can get engaged and get involved by starting high school or college chapters on the front lines to help win the American Culture War.

00:00:27.000 tpusa.com that is tpusa.com.

00:00:31.000 Turningpointusa is the place that you should be engaged and you need to be involved at tpusa.com.

00:00:39.000 Email me your thoughts is always freedom at charliekirk.com.

00:00:41.000 Freedom at charliekirk.com.

00:00:43.000 Support the Charlie Kirk show at charliekirk.com slash support.

00:00:46.000 That is charliekirk.com slash support.

00:00:49.000 Buckle up everybody here.

00:00:50.000 We go.

00:00:51.000 Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.

00:00:53.000 Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.

00:00:55.000 I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.

00:00:58.000 Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.

00:01:02.000 I want to thank Charlie.

00:01:03.000 He's an incredible guy.

00:01:04.000 His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.

00:01:12.000 We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.

00:01:21.000 That's why we are here.

00:01:24.000 Brought to you by Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage.

00:01:27.000 For personalized loan services, you can count on.

00:01:29.000 Go to andrewandtodd.com, the wonderfulandrewandodd.com.

00:01:36.000 Yesterday, we were diving into how the United States Supreme Court has suffered, I guess is the best word to use, an unprecedented leak from who we do not know.

00:01:48.000 We think we know, but the person who is best able to describe this and articulate it is the head of a wonderful organization called the Article 3 Project.

00:02:00.000 That's articlenumber3project.org.

00:02:03.000 And it is the terrific Mike Davis.

00:02:06.000 Mike, welcome back to the program.

00:02:08.000 Thank you for having me back on, Charlie.

00:02:10.000 So Mike, what are we supposed to make of this?

00:02:12.000 The U.S. Supreme Court is leaking decisions before they happen.

00:02:18.000 First of all, who could potentially do something like this?

00:02:21.000 Do we know who probably did this?

00:02:23.000 And if so, what is the proper course of action to hold that person accountable?

00:02:27.000 So I clerked for Justice Gorosic on the Supreme Court, and I also served as the chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

00:02:35.000 And my part of my portfolio was oversight over the federal judiciary.

00:02:39.000 I have never heard anything like what happens with this leak.

00:02:43.000 I don't think it's ever happens that a draft majority opinion for a Supreme Court case has leaked out prior to the court issuing the opinion, especially in a case this monumental.

00:02:55.000 This is the Dobbs case where it looks like at least five, maybe six justices on the Supreme Court are going to overturn Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey and return abortion regulations back to the states where it belongs.

00:03:10.000 This is a stunning breach of protocol.

00:03:15.000 Each of the nine Supreme Court justices have four law clerks.

00:03:20.000 Each of them have generally two to three administrative aides.

00:03:23.000 It is a very small universe of people who have access to these draft opinions.

00:03:30.000 And these opinions have to circulate among the justices because they have to work together.

00:03:35.000 They have to collaborate in order to draft majority opinions, dissenting opinions, and concurring opinions.

00:03:42.000 And if you shatter that trust, if you shatter that secrecy, that confidence in the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court can no longer function.

00:03:51.000 Right.

00:03:51.000 So who potentially could do something like a clerk or just someone in kind of that orbit?

00:03:57.000 And what could be done to hold this person accountable for leaking this decision?

00:04:03.000 Well, like I said, there are a very limited number of people who have access to these draft opinions.

00:04:08.000 The nine Supreme Court justices, each of their four law clerks and each of their two to three administrative aides, may be IT people, but I doubt it.

00:04:15.000 There is an intranet system in the Supreme Court that's not even connected to the outside world.

00:04:20.000 It's not connected to the internet where they draft and circulate these opinions.

00:04:24.000 So it looks like to me, if I had my hunch, I would say that a disgruntled law clerk printed this and gave it to the political reporter.

00:04:35.000 If you look at the draft opinion that Politico published, it looked like a printed and scanned opinion.

00:04:42.000 It is a draft majority opinion by Justice Alito.

00:04:45.000 What I would do, if I were the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, of Chief Justice of the United States, has already ordered the Marshal of the Supreme Court to investigate this.

00:04:56.000 The Marshal is a Supreme Court officer.

00:04:59.000 This person is the head law enforcement officer for the Supreme Court.

00:05:03.000 This person runs the Supreme Court police.

00:05:07.000 The Supreme Court actually has its own police force of nearly 200 police officers.

00:05:12.000 They can investigate this.

00:05:13.000 If they need additional help, they can call in the U.S. Marshal Service from the Justice Department and deputize them to help with this investigation.

00:05:22.000 The U.S. Marshal Service has worked very closely with federal judges, protecting them, protecting federal courthouses for over a century.

00:05:29.000 So that's the most likely federal agency who could step in if needed.

00:05:33.000 I would just caution that we do not want the political branches sticking their nose into this investigation without the court's permission, because you don't want to set a precedent where Congress or the Biden White House or any other White House thinks that they can meddle in the internal and the internal operations of an independent branch of government, especially the Supreme Court.

00:05:55.000 So I think the Chief Justice is going to get to the bottom of this.

00:05:58.000 I think that through the Marshal, I think what they're going to do is they're going to interview every single one of these law clerks and employees, other employees, and they're going to, if these, if they make a false statement to these federal investigators, it's a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, which is a felony.

00:06:15.000 Whoever leaked this is in serious, serious trouble.

00:06:18.000 If it's a lawyer, they're going to get fired.

00:06:20.000 They're going to get disbarred and they might be prosecuted.

00:06:23.000 You could prosecute this person for potentially misuse or even stolen federal property this did not belong to them to give out to a reporter.

00:06:33.000 Another thing that you can look at is a potentially obstruction of justice.

00:06:36.000 If you are leaking out a draft opinion for the purposes, illegally leaking it for the purposes of putting political or illegal pressure on a Supreme Court justice to change their vote on a pending case, that is obstruction of justice.

00:06:53.000 Yeah, I mean, I agree with you.

00:06:54.000 I don't want to see meddling from other branches of government, but hasn't that already happened?

00:06:58.000 I mean, I find it hard to believe this person acted independently.

00:07:02.000 Maybe they did, and they leak it to Politico, which is just suspicious in and of itself.

00:07:08.000 And so the calculus here is maybe we can get enough angry people upset about the decision that the rancor will make the justices change their mind.

00:07:17.000 I think that's the calculus here, which is basically a complete and total undermining of Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the idea of an independent judiciary.

00:07:27.000 If this, as it stands today, basically they're trying to make the judiciary independent no more, isn't that right?

00:07:33.000 Yeah, I mean, this is a direct inside job attack on the independence of the federal judiciary, including the highest court in the land.

00:07:42.000 This is as serious as it gets.

00:07:44.000 You like it is it is unheard of.

00:07:46.000 It's unprecedented for a draft Supreme Court opinion to leak out like this.

00:07:52.000 And these, it's, it shatters trust.

00:07:55.000 It shatters confidence.

00:07:57.000 It is a direct assault on judicial independence, and they must find who did this, and they must hold this person accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

00:08:07.000 So, let me ask you a question: How likely is it that the final decision will be the same as the draft decision?

00:08:16.000 Having clerked and having gone through that, do you think now there's a chance that they change their mind?

00:08:21.000 Or do you think that the draft was actually not as certain as we might have believed?

00:08:26.000 Do you have any insight into that?

00:08:28.000 Yeah, I mean, I don't have any insight into this particular case because I don't talk to justices or court employees, including the clerks, about current cases.

00:08:36.000 That would be inappropriate, but I will tell you just how the process has generally worked: the first draft comes out and then the justices collaborate, which is and it improves the draft.

00:08:46.000 You maybe, maybe one of the justices and their clerks catches a mistake and they go through that editing process and it circulates for a long time.

00:08:55.000 It circulates for several weeks, and then the dissenting justices write their draft and circulate it.

00:09:01.000 The concurring justices write their draft and circulate it.

00:09:04.000 But I will say this: if the intended effect was to get justices to change their votes, maybe waffling conservative justices to back away from a five or six vote majority to overturn Roe versus Wade and Casey, I think this leak is going to have the exact opposite effect.

00:09:24.000 Now, justices cannot condone this likely illegal behavior.

00:09:31.000 They cannot reward it by changing their vote.

00:09:34.000 I think for judicial independence, they need to stay firm.

00:09:37.000 Yeah, I think that's exactly right.

00:09:39.000 I think that this was a latched-it-ditch effort.

00:09:41.000 I also, I've been underwhelmed by the protests, by the way.

00:09:44.000 Um, not to say that they can't get out of control after what we saw with Floyd and that whole thing, kind of post-Floyd.

00:09:52.000 But I mean, they've just kind of the same sort of liberal activists kind of screaming with their signs, like, okay, but I also think they hurt their cause, right?

00:10:00.000 They hurt their cause by all of a sudden losing the moral high ground by saying we're going to leak decisions to try to decide this in the streets.

00:10:08.000 Like, I don't think most Americans are actually okay with that.

00:10:11.000 I think I think they're repulsed by it, uh, regardless of their opinions on abortion.

00:10:15.000 Obviously, I'm very pro-life.

00:10:16.000 Um, but I agree.

00:10:17.000 I think that Kavanaugh, Alito, um, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, I think they're like, you're trying to make us change our vote.

00:10:25.000 Like, no, actually, I'm going to double down on it, right?

00:10:25.000 Why?

00:10:28.000 Um, there might be some changes to the actual language of the opinion, but anyone that wants to protect the integrity of the court would should just be totally and completely repulsed by this.

00:10:41.000 So, Mike, can you explain to our audience that this decision in its current form, draft opinion, does not outlaw abortion, instead, it brings it back to the states?

00:10:51.000 This is really a states' rights argument.

00:10:53.000 Can you help build that out for our audience, please?

00:10:55.000 Yeah, I mean, if you look at what our United States Constitution is, it is a loan agreement between we the people and our federal government.

00:11:04.000 And what it does is we loan the federal government specific and enumerated powers in exchange for the federal government promising to protect our liberties.

00:11:15.000 And if we, if we, the people, did not put on paper that the federal government has specific and enumerated powers, the federal government does not have those powers, or at least that's the way it was supposed to work before the liberals took over the federal judiciary 90 years ago and flipped it, flipped that on its head.

00:11:34.000 And so, if you, but if you look at the Constitution, nowhere in the Constitution is abortion mentioned.

00:11:40.000 So, therefore, the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate abortion.

00:11:44.000 That belongs to the states and the people.

00:11:46.000 So if you, before 50 years ago, 49 years ago, before Roe versus Wade was decided in 1973, the states got to decide abortion regulations through the Democrat process.

00:12:00.000 So if you were in a liberal state, you had abortions.

00:12:02.000 And if you were in a conservative state, you had less access to abortions.

00:12:06.000 And what happened with Roe versus Wade is the Supreme Court came in.

00:12:10.000 Now, liberal justices on the Supreme Court just made up. this federal constitutional preemption of every abortion law in this country and they federalized it and they did that for 49 years and it created chaos.

00:12:25.000 It created this unnecessary division and chaos for the last 49 years.

00:12:31.000 And what the Supreme Court looks like it's going to do with Justice Alito's opinion is they're going to correct this wrong.

00:12:38.000 Abortion was regulated by states for the first 200 years of the American Republic.

00:12:42.000 It wasn't until liberal judicial activists hijacked the federal judiciary starting 90 years ago and then Roe versus Wade nearly 50 years ago that they just made up this federal constitutional preemption saying that states couldn't even regulate abortion.

00:13:00.000 It was nonsense. 0.99

00:13:02.000 It's constitutional garbage and it's about to be thrown out the door. 1.00

00:13:06.000 That doesn't mean that abortion is going to be outlawed across the country. 0.99

00:13:10.000 It just means that in some states, it's going to be, you're going to have more access than other states.

00:13:14.000 Can you talk about how this could have ramifications on other decisions?

00:13:20.000 Could this possibly go after Oberfell?

00:13:22.000 I always mispronounce it, sorry.

00:13:24.000 Ogbergfeld, whatever.

00:13:26.000 The gay marriage decision.

00:13:28.000 Yeah.

00:13:28.000 I mean, basically, are we seeing kind of revival back to states' rights?

00:13:32.000 Because that's another decision where marriage was defined by 25 plus states and it became nationalized and federalized.

00:13:40.000 In fact, I make the argument this de-radicalizes the country when it becomes local governance, right?

00:13:45.000 If you want to live in a pro-life state, then live in a pro-life state.

00:13:48.000 So can you kind of walk through how this might have precedent for other areas of legal interpretation?

00:13:54.000 So if you look at those, if you look at those areas, that deals with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

00:14:04.000 There's an equal protection component to Roe versus Wade, but it's really just made up.

00:14:09.000 I mean, it's just made up.

00:14:10.000 They talk about penumbras and emanations of these zones of privacy throughout these various constitutional amendments.

00:14:18.000 Basically, they just, it's constitutional mush is what they did to create this zone of privacy large enough to encompass the right to kill your unborn child is essentially what Roe versus Wade came up with.

00:14:32.000 I don't think Obergefell is on the chopping block anytime soon.

00:14:37.000 I think that it's just different.

00:14:40.000 It's handled different doctrinally through the constitutional analysis than Roe was done.

00:14:45.000 That's very helpful.

00:14:45.000 Got it.

00:14:46.000 Article3project.org, that's a three in the number.

00:14:49.000 So check it out, article3project.org.

00:14:51.000 Mike, thank you so much for joining us.

00:14:52.000 Thanks for having me back on, Charlie.

00:14:54.000 Thank you.

00:14:57.000 Look, over the years, you've probably tried difficult investments in stocks and mutual funds.

00:15:02.000 So you know they could be volatile and unpredictable.

00:15:04.000 But with inflation running at the highest rate of 40 years, do you want volatility and uncertainty?

00:15:09.000 Being able to sleep at night, knowing where your money actually is, it's worth its weight in gold.

00:15:14.000 And speaking of gold, if you've been jumping from one investment to the other, a gold IRA from Noble Gold might be perfect for you.

00:15:21.000 A reliable hedge against inflation just fell into our laps.

00:15:24.000 With gold, you shield yourself from gains and taxes.

00:15:27.000 You keep the real value of your wealth.

00:15:29.000 You'll own a global asset.

00:15:31.000 It's something tangible and protect your wealth against an economic crash.

00:15:34.000 I own gold and you should as well.

00:15:36.000 So what's not to like?

00:15:37.000 And this month, for every gold IRA above $20,000, you'll get an incredible 3-ounce silver American virtue coin completely free as a thank you.

00:15:46.000 Call 877-646-5347 now to find out more at noblegoldinvestments.com.

00:15:51.000 That's noblegoldinvestments.com, noblegoldinvestments.com.

00:15:58.000 One of the nation's top law enforcement officers is supposed to be the head of the Department of Homeland Security.

00:16:04.000 So DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, was formed after 9-11.

00:16:10.000 It did not exist prior to 9-11.

00:16:12.000 It was a response saying that, okay, we need a new federal government agency to try to mess up what we did on 9-11.

00:16:18.000 Now, mind you, 9-11 was largely an immigration failure.

00:16:21.000 9-11 was largely a failure to screen people coming into America and not having proper or prudent immigration policies.

00:16:30.000 It's less about screening people at the TSA with the TSA at the airport.

00:16:35.000 Now, I have to say this.

00:16:36.000 I have a lot of people that recognize me that are TSA agents.

00:16:40.000 They're wonderful people.

00:16:42.000 I mean that.

00:16:42.000 But the TSA is not a wonderful agency.

00:16:44.000 It's a terrible agency.

00:16:46.000 It's awful.

00:16:46.000 I wish the best for those people that are so kind and they're so nice to me.

00:16:50.000 Not all of them are, but you got to find something else to do.

00:16:54.000 One of the things people say, Charlie, if you were king for a day, what's one of the first things you would do?

00:16:58.000 I'd privatize the TSA and get it out of our life.

00:17:01.000 Has very little, I think it has almost no national security upside, and it destroys people's time travel.

00:17:09.000 You know how many hours I've lost of my life going through those lines?

00:17:14.000 I think that, I mean, I really think it's thousands of hours at this point.

00:17:17.000 That's a lot of time.

00:17:19.000 The government doesn't just rob my money.

00:17:21.000 It robs me of my privacy and rising and the hours.

00:17:25.000 I mean, you fly out of any airport that's major LAX or Phoenix.

00:17:29.000 It is an absolute disaster.

00:17:31.000 Okay, so DHS was formed.

00:17:32.000 They oversee TSA.

00:17:33.000 They do that improperly.

00:17:34.000 They oversee the southern border.

00:17:36.000 They do that really poorly.

00:17:38.000 And now their kind of new thing is they're going to fight disinformation in all of its forms.

00:17:43.000 So we played kind of the tape of the super weird girl that is now running the Department of Homeland Security Disinformation Board.

00:17:51.000 Her name is Nina Jankowitz.

00:17:54.000 Do we have the video of her singing?

00:17:56.000 Just kind of a reminder, just kind of a refresher of who we're dealing with here.

00:18:00.000 So she's, again, I feel like I know her.

00:18:03.000 I grew up with people like her.

00:18:04.000 Very snarky, very smug.

00:18:06.000 Everything's ironic and sarcastic.

00:18:08.000 You're kind of the, no matter what, you're in a conversation with your family or friends, but it's always just kind of has to be a sharp kind of one-liner.

00:18:17.000 You know, you can never find yourself in total agreement or harmony with whatever the kind of consensus is.

00:18:23.000 It has to just be like, oh, but have you read Herbert Marcuse?

00:18:29.000 Or, oh, have you read like Jacques Derrida or Michelle Foucault or whatever, right?

00:18:36.000 This is kind of always a snarky one-liner in response.

00:18:40.000 So she's a big Harry Potter fan.

00:18:42.000 She has these really creepy and disturbing videos where she just sings and says really weird stuff.

00:18:47.000 So now she's in charge of all disinformation in our country. 0.72

00:18:51.000 And so do we have a clip to that one?

00:18:54.000 Or we're getting that queued up.

00:18:57.000 So this is her singing the Mary Poppins song and kind of talking about disinformation.

00:19:03.000 Now, again, we can kind of put the whole thing that like China's laughing at us.

00:19:07.000 No, they've stopped laughing and they just know they're going to take us over when they see stuff like this.

00:19:12.000 Okay, this is cut 55.

00:19:14.000 Information laundering is really quite ferocious.

00:19:17.000 It's when a huckster takes some lies and makes them sound precocious by saying them in Congress or a mainstream outlet.

00:19:23.000 So disinformation's origins are slightly less atrocious.

00:19:28.000 It's how you hide a little eye, little lie.

00:19:30.000 It's how you hide a little eye, little lie.

00:19:31.000 It's how you hide a little eye little lie when Rudy Giuliani shared that intelligence on Ukraine.

00:19:36.000 Oh, when TikTok influences say COVID can cause pain, they're laundry and disinfo when we really should take notes and not support their lies with our wallet voice all night.

00:19:46.000 Now, mind you, this is her spreading disinformation. 1.00

00:19:49.000 She's spreading disinformation that the laptop was actually Russian disinformation.

00:19:54.000 Now, she wasn't taken down from TikTok, obviously, for doing that entire performance.

00:19:59.000 Now, you just heard that.

00:20:00.000 You're probably driving in your car or listening to us while you're working out.

00:20:03.000 Like, well, that's not a serious person.

00:20:06.000 But here's Alejandro Mayorkis, the head of DHS, saying, Nina Jankowitz, she's a renowned expert in the field of disinformation.

00:20:14.000 Play cut three.

00:20:16.000 Republicans are criticizing your decision, the administration's decision, to choose Nina Jankowicz to lead this disinformation board.

00:20:25.000 They say she is not somebody who is neutral.

00:20:27.000 Your response?

00:20:28.000 Eminently qualified, a renowned expert in the field of disinformation.

00:20:34.000 Absolutely so.

00:20:36.000 Eminently qualified, a renowned expert.

00:20:38.000 They just keep on saying this stuff, and there's just no basis for this at all.

00:20:42.000 Majorca should be in prison for what he's doing to America, by the way.

00:20:45.000 It is a crime to keep America's southern border open.

00:20:48.000 But this is an important point, which is the left has now developed a backup plan.

00:20:53.000 They've developed a backup plan to kind of their social media censorship regime.

00:21:01.000 Now, the smart people on the left, and there's not a lot of them, they kind of saw this coming.

00:21:07.000 They saw all of a sudden post-January 6th when Donald Trump got kicked off social media that the idea of spreading information online freely through sites like Rumble and other places, that it was going to kind of be a short-lived thing to just have a couple different monopolies.

00:21:21.000 Now, mind you, none of this that you are seeing unfold is a mistake.

00:21:29.000 The left is now going to put on their we must break up companies, we must regulate tech companies immediately.

00:21:37.000 Why?

00:21:37.000 Because of Donald Trump's Truth Social, because of Rumble, and because of Elon Musk buying Twitter.

00:21:43.000 The fact they no longer control these companies is now a mandate for them to try to censor these companies.

00:21:51.000 You see, they didn't want to break up Twitter.

00:21:53.000 They didn't want to break up Facebook when they got what they wanted.

00:21:56.000 When they got $400 million of money from Mark Zuckerberg to fund mail and ballots, they didn't want to break up Facebook.

00:22:02.000 When Twitter was rejecting the Hunter Biden laptop story, they were perfectly appreciative of Twitter.

00:22:07.000 But now, CNN says, look, we need to regulate these companies.

00:22:13.000 Play cut two.

00:22:15.000 No, I think there's a bigger problem that when we focus on the personalities of people like Elon Musk, and people say, oh, I think Elon's thinking this or that.

00:22:22.000 There's a bigger problem here about how we are going to control the channels of communication in this country.

00:22:29.000 This is dangerous.

00:22:30.000 We can't think anymore in this country.

00:22:32.000 We don't have people.

00:22:33.000 No, I'm serious.

00:22:34.000 We don't have people in Congress who can make regulations that can make it work.

00:22:39.000 I think we can look to the Western countries in Europe for how they are trying to limit it.

00:22:44.000 But you need, you need controls on this.

00:22:47.000 You need regulation.

00:22:48.000 You cannot let these guys control discourse in this country, or we are headed to hell.

00:22:53.000 We are there.

00:22:54.000 Trump opened the gate to hell, and now they're chasing us.

00:22:58.000 We need a control, quote, we need to control discourse in this country. 0.98

00:23:03.000 This weird lunatic by the name of David Zerwalik, whatever his name is, on CNN says.

00:23:08.000 Now, mind you, this is a gift to Google and Facebook.

00:23:11.000 Google and Facebook have wanted for a while to be regulated.

00:23:16.000 That's right.

00:23:16.000 Google and Facebook have wanted a very specific time of regulation.

00:23:20.000 Remember, regulation, especially vast amounts of regulation, is a way to protect the incumbent advantage of a major company.

00:23:30.000 It's just a rounding error to have to deal with more regulation at Facebook.

00:23:34.000 But more regulation could crush Truth Social.

00:23:37.000 More regulation could crush Getter.

00:23:40.000 More regulation could crush Rumble.

00:23:44.000 And so now they want to protect Facebook because they're still somewhat helpful to the regime.

00:23:49.000 They want to protect Google, but now they want to crush Twitter.

00:23:53.000 Twitter is no longer helpful to them.

00:23:55.000 It will be in the short term, but as soon as Elon Musk gets his way with Twitter, it's going to be a direct threat.

00:24:00.000 So they're going to want to now regulate it.

00:24:02.000 Remember when Obama floated this out saying social media censors don't go far enough.

00:24:08.000 Play cut 12.

00:24:10.000 In talking to people at these companies, I believe they are sincere in trying to limit content that engages in hate speech, encourages violence, or poses a threat to public safety.

00:24:23.000 But while content moderation can limit the distribution of clearly dangerous content, it doesn't go far enough.

00:24:33.000 It doesn't go far enough.

00:24:36.000 So what they want basically is a disinformation board that has now been created by the Department of Homeland Security to determine which social media companies are favorable and which ones are unfavorable.

00:24:50.000 So the question I think, and Glenn Greenwald posed this question, I really want to have him on the program to talk about this.

00:24:56.000 What is a disinformation expert exactly?

00:24:59.000 Like, what is that?

00:25:00.000 Does it require a particular degree or life experience?

00:25:03.000 Is there a licensing board or some sort of official certification?

00:25:07.000 What credentials, scholarship, or accomplishments are needed to justify being lavished with such a pompous label?

00:25:15.000 It's nonsense.

00:25:18.000 Now, mind you, she's the one that actually peddles disinformation. 1.00

00:25:22.000 That makes her an expert, kind of like someone who used to be part of the mob is also kind of like a mob expert when they do those shows on CNBC.

00:25:28.000 Like, here's Jerry, and he's a mob expert because he used to be a bag man for the mob.

00:25:32.000 Like, okay, I guess.

00:25:33.000 Is that her?

00:25:34.000 I don't know.

00:25:34.000 What exactly does it mean?

00:25:36.000 What it does mean is that she'll be loyal to the regime.

00:25:38.000 That's what it does.

00:25:39.000 What it means is that she will put opinions forward to censor ideas and opinions they don't like. 0.99

00:25:45.000 So you might say, Charlie, okay, what's the big deal here?

00:25:47.000 Let's use an example.

00:25:48.000 If this disinformation board was up and running a couple months ago, they would have censored all conversation around Ivermectin.

00:25:58.000 If this disinformation board was up and running, they would have censored all conversation around Ukrainian biolabs.

00:26:04.000 The disinformation board that this woman now runs, the Department of Homeland Security, we call it the Ministry of Truth, will be positioned precisely to try to stunt opposing ideas to the corporate oligarchy. 1.00

00:26:17.000 That's really what the free internet was always supposed to be about.

00:26:19.000 The free internet was supposed to let the best ideas win.

00:26:22.000 Let's have them compete. 1.00

00:26:24.000 Let's have them go one up against one another. 0.98

00:26:28.000 Instead, they don't want a free internet.

00:26:30.000 A free internet is actually a direct affront to the exact type of country that they want us to live in.

00:26:40.000 Majorca says the group that he has put together is going to safeguard the right to free speech.

00:26:44.000 Play cut four.

00:26:46.000 I believe that this working group that gathers together, gathers together best practices, makes sure that our work is coordinated, consistent with those best practices, that we're safeguarding the right of free speech, that we're safeguarding civil liberties, I think is an extraordinarily important endeavor.

00:27:05.000 Extraordinarily important endeavor.

00:27:08.000 The woman that they just installed with all of this power does not appear to have been vetted critically in the slightest in any way whatsoever.

00:27:20.000 Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here with the left in total panic over Twitter and DHS essentially creating their own Ministry of Truth.

00:27:26.000 It is safe to say we're facing the biggest threat to the First Amendment in our lifetime.

00:27:29.000 That's why I'm proud to support Patriot Mobile, America's only Christian conservative cell phone provider.

00:27:34.000 They offer broad nationwide coverage to get the same great service.funding the major carriers who donate to the left.

00:27:40.000 Patriot Mobile has plans to fit any budget, and their U.S.-based customer support team provides exceptional customer service.

00:27:45.000 Most importantly, Patriot Mobile shares your values and supports organizations fighting for religious freedom, constitutional rights, and the sanctity of life.

00:27:52.000 Make the switch today.

00:27:52.000 Go to patriotmobile.com/slash Charlie or call 972 Patriot.

00:27:56.000 Get free activation with the offer code Charlie.

00:27:58.000 That's patriotmobile.com/slash Charlie.

00:28:00.000 They also have special discounts for our veteran and first responder heroes.

00:28:04.000 That's patriotmobile.com/slash Charlie or call 972 Patriot, patriotmobile.com/slash Charlie or call 972 Patriot, patriotmobile.com/slash Charlie.

00:28:13.000 Again, that is patriotmobile.com/slash Charlie or call 972 Patriot, patriotmobile.com/slash Charlie.

00:28:22.000 Okay, I want to get to some sound here.

00:28:24.000 So, Nina Jankowicz is now in charge of censoring people's speech from the federal government. 0.78

00:28:28.000 But before she said that the executive branch shouldn't have the power to determine what is fake news, play cut 16.

00:28:35.000 Imagine that, you know, with President Trump right now calling all of these news organizations that have inconvenient for him stories that they're getting out there that he's calling fake news and now lashing out at platforms.

00:28:48.000 I would never want to see our executive branch have that sort of power.

00:28:54.000 She reminds me of Pete Buttigieg.

00:28:55.000 Reminds me of Pete Buttigieg because she was created in the academy and for a very specific purpose.

00:29:02.000 She was created in the academy because she's there.

00:29:06.000 She's basically like somebody that is there in the branch of government that will never question the hierarchy, that is someone within the workings and almost has like a robot, a robotic type of focus on one issue.

00:29:24.000 It's like you think about it, a disinformation expert, somebody in power picked up Nina Jankowicz a couple years ago, saw that she had some, I guess, I don't quite understand.

00:29:38.000 I don't quite know the word, skill, I guess, but she was very likely to obey, right?

00:29:45.000 She wanted approval.

00:29:46.000 I think Nina Jankowicz wants approval by other people. 0.99

00:29:50.000 And she had an unflinching loyalty to the party line.

00:29:54.000 Someone saw that she had a lot of potential for that.

00:29:56.000 So someone obviously decided to get Nina Jankowicz in the right positions, working on the Ukraine desk, working in all sorts of places, that eventually Nina Jankowicz could have an over-promotion, just like Pete Buttigieg, Mayor Pete. 1.00

00:30:08.000 And they go to these type elite schools.

00:30:10.000 They never say anything disagreeable to the consensus.

00:30:13.000 And they're honestly quite boring.

00:30:15.000 Like if you sat down with Pete Buttigieg or Nina Jankowicz, they wouldn't really have an interesting, unique thought, right?

00:30:20.000 They just kind of regurgitate what other people would say.

00:30:24.000 They crafted her into this position for a purpose.

00:30:29.000 Somebody created her.

00:30:30.000 She is a creation of something or somebody.

00:30:34.000 Some media machine, some academic machine or the national security state.

00:30:40.000 They saw Nina Jankowitz and they said, wow, is she boring? 0.94

00:30:44.000 Wow, will she be loyal?

00:30:46.000 She's incredibly obedient. 0.85

00:30:48.000 And she has probably, you know, a big desire to be liked.

00:30:55.000 And I just kind of wonder who she publicly declares her mentor to be.

00:30:58.000 Maybe Jim Clapper?

00:31:00.000 I don't know.

00:31:01.000 Or Gina Haskell. 1.00

00:31:05.000 Somebody, somebody, I'm not going to use actually, somebody groomed her, okay?

00:31:09.000 Not in the way that we've been talking about the last couple of weeks, but it's true.

00:31:11.000 Somebody, she's, what is she, like 32 or 33?

00:31:14.000 Is that right?

00:31:16.000 She's 33.

00:31:17.000 And she's running like the entire kind of conversation disinformation when she herself spreads disinformation. 0.92

00:31:24.000 Thank you so much for listening, everybody.

00:31:26.000 Email us your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.

00:31:28.000 Thank you so much for listening.

00:31:29.000 God bless.

00:31:32.000 For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk. com.

The Charlie Kirk Show - May 04, 2022

The Leak That Could Shatter the Supreme Court with Mike Davis

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript