The Charlie Kirk Show - April 23, 2024


Why The Right’s Ankle-Biters Target Tucker


Episode Stats


Length

38 minutes

Words per minute

160.09442

Word count

6,217

Sentence count

445

Harmful content

Misogyny

8

sentences flagged

Toxicity

7

sentences flagged

Hate speech

17

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Darren Beattie of Revolver News joins me to talk about Tucker Carlson's controversial Joe Rogan appearance and why people are up in arms about it. And then we have the great Julie Kelly to break down the unredacted documents from Jack Smith that seem to indicate collusion at the highest levels of your government to get Trump long before they publicly admitted to it.

Transcript

Transcripts from "The Charlie Kirk Show" are sourced from the Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool. Explore them interactively here.
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.
00:00:02.000 We have Darren Beattie.
00:00:03.000 We go through with the clips and all of the controversy around Tucker Carlson's Joe Rogan appearance.
00:00:11.000 Why is it causing such a hubbub on the right?
00:00:15.000 Why are people up in arms?
00:00:16.000 We break it down.
00:00:17.000 We talk about the clips with Darren Beattie, the editor-in-chief of Revolver.news.
00:00:21.000 And then we have the great Julie Kelly to break down the unredacted documents from Jack Smith that seem to indicate collusion at the highest levels of your government to get Trump long before they publicly admitted to doing so.
00:00:37.000 What is the story there?
00:00:38.000 Julie had a viral story go just completely bonkers yesterday. 1.00
00:00:42.000 We break it down right here.
00:00:43.000 Buckle up, everybody.
00:00:45.000 Here we go.
00:00:46.000 Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
00:00:48.000 Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.
00:00:50.000 I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
00:00:53.000 Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
00:00:56.000 I want to thank Charlie.
00:00:57.000 He's an incredible guy.
00:00:58.000 His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
00:01:05.000 Turning point USA.
00:01:07.000 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.
00:01:15.000 That's why we are here.
00:01:19.000 Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals.
00:01:29.000 Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com.
00:01:36.000 That is noblegoldinvestments.com.
00:01:38.000 It's where I buy all of my gold.
00:01:39.000 Go to noblegoldinvestments.com.
00:01:44.000 All right, Darren Beatty, editor-in-chief of Revolver.news.
00:01:47.000 How you doing, my friend?
00:01:48.000 How you been?
00:01:49.000 I'm doing great, and I'm particularly thrilled to be here with you.
00:01:54.000 Oh, fantastic.
00:01:56.000 I'm glad to have you, Darren.
00:01:58.000 Darren, you wrote a piece that I thought was just like the way you said it perfectly encapsulated how I had been feeling about the Tucker Carlson Joe Rogan interview.
00:02:10.000 So this thing goes, I mean, mega viral.
00:02:13.000 Your piece is called Conservative Ankle Biters Throw Daggers at Tucker After His Wildly Successful Appearance on Joe Rogan, Joe Rogan's podcast.
00:02:23.000 The daggers are out in full force, you write, against Tucker Carlson.
00:02:27.000 And this time, it's not from the usual left-wing nut jobs, but rather friendly fire from the right.
00:02:32.000 That's right.
00:02:33.000 The hate has been flowing like lava from conservatives online and in the media.
00:02:38.000 All right.
00:02:38.000 So, Darren, your perspective, I watched this unfold sort of over the weekend.
00:02:43.000 Charlie tweeted out one of the clips about the building seven questions.
00:02:47.000 You know, it got like 3 million impressions, which surprised me, which is a fair amount.
00:02:54.000 As a media commentator, as an observer of the human condition, Darren, what has been your perspective? 0.99
00:03:00.000 These ankle biters have come out for Tucker and why? 0.99
00:03:04.000 Well, I mean, I just find it filthy and really pathetic. 1.00
00:03:11.000 And some of them are people that you would expect. 0.97
00:03:13.000 You know, I was just looking over the piece and I even forgot about this person.
00:03:19.000 Let me look up the name. 1.00
00:03:20.000 One of, you know, one of the many ankle biters.
00:03:23.000 That's a problem. 0.95
00:03:24.000 A lot of these people are such non-entities.
00:03:26.000 I feel guilty for even giving attention to it.
00:03:29.000 But there's a piece in the Washington Examiner, for instance, by Tiana Lowe Doucher.
00:03:38.000 Okay.
00:03:39.000 Nobody's heard about this person.
00:03:41.000 I looked her up and I recognize her as one of these sort of glorified sort of only fans media voices for political commentaries, these people that emerge.
00:03:54.000 Like, I think, you know, it would be more in place.
00:03:58.000 Would be more suitable if I'm in a casino and somebody like this, you know, just gives me a cocktail or something.
00:04:08.000 But all of a sudden, these kinds of cocktail servers, casino cocktail servers types, they're paraded in front of a camera to give political opinions that are stuffed in their mouths by whatever PR firm, or sometimes they're just dumb and they catch what's in the ether.
00:04:26.000 But in this case, it's the usual thing. 0.81
00:04:28.000 Oh, Tucker's a Russian agent, this and that.
00:04:31.000 A boring point from a non-entity.
00:04:34.000 So that's pretty much enough to be said about that.
00:04:37.000 But what I find actually particularly disgusting is, you know, and there's nothing wrong with criticizing a friendly critique, but a lot of it just seems bitter and malicious.
00:04:51.000 And there's even some of that coming from people who frankly should be more loyal to Tucker because they even worked, they may, I don't want to name names in this case, but there are people even who've worked for Tucker who were jumping on this bandwagon.
00:05:08.000 People who basically owe their entire careers to Tucker, who now just stick the knife in when they can make a cheap shot.
00:05:18.000 So I think it's really revealing of the character of a lot of people, how they're doing this.
00:05:23.000 That's sort of a made of point.
00:05:25.000 You know, we can talk about, you know, what's going on with the, you know, the substance of the interview and such.
00:05:30.000 But because this piece was about the angle bites, it was about the response.
00:05:34.000 And then there's people like this glorified cocktail waitress that are just non-entities and have always been kind of never Trumper types. 0.76
00:05:41.000 So that's to be expected.
00:05:43.000 But what I find flagrant and especially objectionable is when people who should be have some degree of loyalty to Tucker, who in some cases owe their careers largely to Tucker, who in a variety of ways have displayed egregious and entirely unnecessary disloyalty publicly by engaging in cheap shots.
00:06:09.000 Well, and I agree, I agree with that wholeheartedly.
00:06:13.000 It has been, I will admit, one of the more, let's just say, from the right, a varied response.
00:06:20.000 I feel like Tucker's been delving into some interesting topics lately that have elicited, you know, more criticism from the right.
00:06:29.000 And I think that's completely obvious to the casual observer, as a matter of fact.
00:06:34.000 There's basically, I would say, three topics in particular from this Rogan interview, just to take a step back for our audience who maybe isn't fully up to speed.
00:06:43.000 They went viral.
00:06:44.000 It was the Building 7 9-11 commentary asking why did Building 7 go down, right?
00:06:49.000 Which a lot of people have asked that question for a long time, right?
00:06:52.000 Was it controlled demolition?
00:06:54.000 Was it something else?
00:06:55.000 And we're going to play that clip.
00:06:56.000 Then they talk about the moon landing.
00:06:59.000 Was it faked?
00:07:00.000 And then it was the bombing.
00:07:02.000 This one seems to be the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II seems to be the one that really has gotten into people's hearts.
00:07:10.000 That one really happened.
00:07:11.000 That was that fake.
00:07:12.000 Yeah, exactly.
00:07:13.000 Let's go ahead and play Cut 77, Darren, so people have the context.
00:07:16.000 Play Cut 77.
00:07:18.000 Well, I love, by the way, that people on my side, I'll just say, I'll just admit it.
00:07:23.000 On the right, you know, have spent the last 80 years defending dropping nuclear weapons on civilians.
00:07:30.000 Like, are you joking?
00:07:31.000 Right.
00:07:31.000 That's just like prima facie evil.
00:07:34.000 If you can't, well, if we hadn't done that, then this, that, the other thing, that was actually a great savings life.
00:07:39.000 No, it's wrong to drop nuclear weapons on people.
00:07:41.000 And if you find yourself arguing that it's a good thing to drop nuclear weapons on people, then you are evil.
00:07:46.000 Like, it's not a, it's not a tough one, right?
00:07:48.000 It's not a hard call for you.
00:07:49.000 It's not a hard call for me.
00:07:51.000 So, I mean, I have no problem with this debate, but this has really rankled some people.
00:07:57.000 That's a surprise to me.
00:07:59.000 I didn't realize that that particular portion was so controversial.
00:08:04.000 What are people saying?
00:08:06.000 What are the objections to that?
00:08:08.000 Yeah, I mean, because I think what it for a lot of people, dropping the bomb on Japan was a moral tragedy, but a moral necessity, right? 0.50
00:08:20.000 We filter everything through this glorified World War II lens.
00:08:24.000 And so we've sort of dealt with that morally as a country.
00:08:28.000 But what I think it does is it isolates a current rift in the debate versus isolationism versus expanding American power abroad, right?
00:08:39.000 This neocon, the remnants of this neocon core within the conservative side, and as well as like a larger culture, the larger culture, right?
00:08:48.000 Yeah.
00:08:48.000 So Darren, just to fill out this idea, I think it's the people equate dropping the A-bomb as sort of like this, this, yeah, it was something we needed to do, a necessity to win the war.
00:09:01.000 But the truth is, is that there had been a negotiated peace ongoing with Japan.
00:09:06.000 It's a question, an open question of whether or not Japan would have ultimately surrendered without that very incredible action being taken.
00:09:14.000 But it's America first sort of versus America only, right?
00:09:18.000 Sort of this idea that if you're opposing that action, you're opposing America.
00:09:23.000 Yeah, I mean, I think that's silly.
00:09:25.000 I think there's a wide range of permissible debate on this.
00:09:30.000 And certainly the position that Tucker advocated is entirely sensible.
00:09:37.000 So I don't understand why that's objectionable.
00:09:39.000 I mean, I would happen to disagree with that. 0.99
00:09:41.000 I think the use of the nukes in that case was justified and probably the best call.
00:09:47.000 But in terms of somebody with Tucker's position being unacceptable or something, that's bizarre to me, especially because I thought some of the other things Tucker said were more provocative than that.
00:10:04.000 We're going to get into this.
00:10:05.000 I was kind of surprised that people were focusing on that.
00:10:09.000 It seems like a lot of people and sort of the peace tradition.
00:10:13.000 But I think it's also the context is important because if we get focused on that particular discussion, we can lose track of the fact that what Tucker was really getting at was a conversation about AI and what to do about it.
00:10:25.000 That was the context of it.
00:10:28.000 Basically, the analogy that I think he made explicit between AI as this new emerging super weapon with the destructive capabilities perhaps of a nuclear weapon, if not greater, and what can we do about this now?
00:10:43.000 Is it inevitable that we should develop these things?
00:10:46.000 He called repeatedly.
00:10:47.000 I don't know if he was being serious, but he was expressing a sentiment of why don't we just destroy the servers?
00:10:52.000 Why don't we destroy this technology before it gets into something that can't be controlled?
00:10:57.000 And of course, you know, that's an entirely sensible position as well.
00:11:02.000 It's one that's very complicated.
00:11:04.000 As you may know, and some listeners may know, my background is in philosophy and in particular on a German philosopher, Martin Heidegger, which was one of the great theorists of technology of the 20th century, who had a view that you can't necessarily control technology in the way that people think you can.
00:11:27.000 And so sometimes, you know, even efforts to go back and destroy technology are efforts to control technology that have all sorts of unanticipated ramifications.
00:11:39.000 So the conversation lends itself to a lot of nuance and sophistication.
00:11:45.000 Tucker's position is one that is not out of place.
00:11:49.000 It's one that has been around and it's certainly a voice that Should be respected and entertained, if only because even if he's not right about what could be done or what should be done, he lends a very important and welcome sense of gravitas and weight to the question of AI.
00:12:13.000 At the very least, we shouldn't take all of these things cavalierly.
00:12:18.000 And I find that particularly from the tech sector, people with these tech spirits are especially impoverished philosophically and incapable of thinking in terms of what the broader significance of the technology that they're developing really would be.
00:12:36.000 They're very juvenile in a philosophical sense.
00:12:40.000 And so I think it would be welcome if somebody like Tucker Carlson could introduce a sense of gravity about the direction that things are going.
00:12:50.000 Even if that direction is inevitable, it could still be a positive thing to have a sense of: is this not just an inevitable thing, but is it a good thing?
00:13:01.000 What's being lost?
00:13:02.000 What's the threat of the, you know, to the way that human beings relate to the world?
00:13:08.000 What's the threat to our traditional understanding of what it means to be a human being?
00:13:13.000 All of these things are wrapped up into the development of not just AI, but technology generally.
00:13:20.000 And again, I don't see any reason why it should be out of place in conversation.
00:13:26.000 Quite the contrary, I think it should be welcome.
00:13:30.000 Well, and I agree with you.
00:13:31.000 I think Tucker's genius.
00:13:35.000 Yes, he's incredibly charming.
00:13:36.000 He's a generational media talent, but he does add a sense of gravitas to discussions that need it, right?
00:13:44.000 When we're sort of taking our eye off the ball, something morally, he's able to hone us in and make us focus.
00:13:52.000 Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here.
00:13:53.000 For 10 years, Patriot Mobile's been America's only Christian conservative wireless provider.
00:13:57.000 When I say only, trust me, they are the only one. 0.90
00:14:00.000 Glenn and the team have been great supporters of the show, which is why I'm so proud to partner with them.
00:14:05.000 Patriot Mobile offers dependable nationwide coverage, giving you the ability to access all three major networks, which means you get the same coverage you've been accustomed to without funding the left.
00:14:14.000 When you switch to Patriot Mobile, you're sending the message that you support free speech, religious liberty, the sanctity of life, Second Amendment, our military veterans, and first responder heroes.
00:14:22.000 Their 100% U.S.-based customer service team makes switching quite easy.
00:14:26.000 Keep your number, keep your phone, or upgrade.
00:14:28.000 Their team will help you find their best plan for your needs.
00:14:30.000 Just go to patriotmobile.com slash Charlie or call 972 Patriot.
00:14:34.000 Get free activation when you use offer code Charlie.
00:14:36.000 Join me and make the switch today.
00:14:38.000 I love Patriot Mobile.
00:14:40.000 Glenn is amazing.
00:14:41.000 I was just hanging out with him in Scottsdale.
00:14:43.000 Great guy, great American, really terrific what they're doing.
00:14:46.000 PatriotMobile.com/slash Charlie.
00:14:48.000 That is patriotmobile.com slash Charlie or call 972 Patriot, patriotmobile.com slash Charlie.
00:14:56.000 So I want to make one last point on this Japanese bombing discussion.
00:15:01.000 I think, you know, we just in the break, we were discussing that one of Tucker's incredible abilities is adding gravitas, importance, honing our focus in on an issue that is either getting overlooked or bypassed or not enough scrutiny.
00:15:18.000 And I think there is this general, just from the chats I'm in, there's this general concern that perhaps by Tucker going delving into all of these stray discussions, that he's losing his focus.
00:15:30.000 Now, I don't personally feel that, but I had one friend say that, you know, Tucker reigned in by Fox was somehow, you know, you were getting the best of Tucker without some of the fringy discussion points.
00:15:43.000 I actually personally just completely disagree with that.
00:15:47.000 I love seeing all of Tucker's like wild and errant thinking about different things because I do think he is morally very clear. 0.63
00:15:54.000 And what he was actually saying about the A-bomb, you could disagree with it.
00:15:58.000 I, you know, frankly, I think I do. 0.98
00:16:02.000 But in the context of what's going on in Israel with Hamas and all this stuff, I think this is actually why this clip has erupted so much, because it's a larger question of is it okay to kill civilians as a wartime action, right?
00:16:17.000 And that's essentially what he's wrestling with there.
00:16:20.000 And he's a little bit Israel skeptic.
00:16:22.000 I think that's clear.
00:16:24.000 You know, whatever.
00:16:25.000 I think, but I think that's why it's also rankling so many people.
00:16:30.000 But, but again, I love that, I love delving into troubling waters and discussions and debates.
00:16:36.000 It's very American.
00:16:37.000 It's very conservative.
00:16:38.000 Sometimes why our side feels so contentious within itself.
00:16:45.000 But, anyways, Darren, I want to keep going on this because I want to play.
00:16:48.000 This is the Building Seven discussion.
00:16:50.000 Let's go ahead and play 79.
00:16:52.000 What's the justification for classifying any document around 9-11?
00:16:55.000 There's no justification.
00:16:55.000 Well, the same justification in classifying the documents about the Kennedy assassin exactly 61 years later.
00:17:00.000 Or releasing the COVID vaccine data 75 years later.
00:17:00.000 Yeah.
00:17:04.000 Of course.
00:17:04.000 Yeah.
00:17:06.000 You know, the wildest thing about Tower 7 is that if you just say it looks like a controlled demolition, people get mad at you.
00:17:14.000 Why?
00:17:15.000 Well, I don't know.
00:17:16.000 I'm not saying that it is a controlled demolition, but I'm saying if you watch it, it looks like a controlled demolition.
00:17:24.000 Darren, what's your reaction to that and why people are getting up in arms?
00:17:30.000 Well, it's a very sensitive issue.
00:17:32.000 You know, 9-11 is a very sensitive issue.
00:17:35.000 It's one of those things that has immediate and visceral emotional resonance with pretty much all Americans, certainly Americans of a certain age.
00:17:45.000 We all remember where we were.
00:17:47.000 It was probably the most traumatic political event in many people's lifetimes.
00:17:53.000 I guess for some people at MSNBC, that's January 6th, but for most, you know, regular sane people, it was 9-11.
00:18:03.000 So, and, you know, the thing is, a lot of the narrative surrounding 9-11 became sacred and became intertwined with the psychological and emotional significance of that day, such that it's very difficult to objectively reevaluate and critique in a way that doesn't apply to certain other things, like January 6th,
00:18:32.000 or even kind of Oklahoma City.
00:18:34.000 And so it's clearly a very sensitive issue.
00:18:37.000 It's something that, frankly, probably can't be discussed just because of the emotional attachments.
00:18:44.000 I think it would be too traumatic for the country to really reopen that conversation.
00:18:50.000 So there are a lot of boundaries surrounding it.
00:18:54.000 But again, I don't think this is objectionable for Tucker or Joe Rogan or any of these other people.
00:19:04.000 And that's the larger issue.
00:19:05.000 That's the larger issue, right, Darren?
00:19:08.000 That we are treating a three-hour long podcast, right?
00:19:12.000 I actually don't know the exact runtime of that particular interview, but these are long-form.
00:19:17.000 They're designed to sort of take you into weird places and ask like find out things about the subject that you otherwise wouldn't.
00:19:26.000 But, you know, it should be okay.
00:19:30.000 I mean, really go in.
00:19:31.000 Just for fun, if people are interested in this, you know, every now and then you have a lazy afternoon, you have a lazy evening, you're looking for something to watch.
00:19:40.000 You don't necessarily take it seriously.
00:19:42.000 You just want something to take a look at.
00:19:45.000 Well, there's a documentary called The New Pearl Harbor about 9-11.
00:19:49.000 So if people are interested in this, they can go watch it.
00:19:52.000 And, you know, some of the things there may be false, may be true.
00:19:56.000 Some of the things are documented.
00:19:58.000 And, you know, it's just something that people can explore on their own if they have an interest in it.
00:20:03.000 But it's clear why there are a lot of strong taboos and emotional associations with this event because it really was the most traumatic thing in most people's lifetime.
00:20:18.000 The world is in flames, and biotonomics is a complete and total disaster, but it can't and won't ruin my day.
00:20:24.000 Why?
00:20:25.000 Because I start my day with a hot America first cup of blackout coffee.
00:20:29.000 It's 100% America and 0% Grift.
00:20:32.000 Blackout Coffee is 100% committed to conservative values, from sourcing the beans to the roasting process, customer support, and shipping.
00:20:39.000 They embody true American values and accept no compromise on taste or quality.
00:20:43.000 Look, you got to check out right now, blackoutcoffee.com/slash Charlie, or use coupon code Charlie for 20% off your first order.
00:20:49.000 That is blackoutcoffee.com/slash Charlie.
00:20:52.000 Be awake, not woke.
00:20:53.000 That's blackoutcoffee.com/slash Charlie.
00:20:55.000 Check it out, promo code Charlie.
00:21:00.000 We're going to get into this story that Julie Kelly broke.
00:21:05.000 She's going to be joining us in just a second. 0.99
00:21:07.000 So essentially, as you know, in the South, in South Florida, Trump is on trial for the so-called classified documents case.
00:21:20.000 And Julie Kelly has been on top of this.
00:21:22.000 Judge Cannon is the most hated judge on the left, by the left, because she's actually fair. 1.00
00:21:31.000 And she's forced the redactions to be removed from a series of documents produced by Jack Smith, the special prosecutor on the case that is going after Trump.
00:21:45.000 She's forced the removal of these redactions. 0.94
00:21:50.000 And she had a thread yesterday that went absolutely bananas viral.
00:21:55.000 I mean, it was everywhere.
00:21:57.000 And there's some very key findings that Julie has extracted from this.
00:22:03.000 And I'm looking at the Twitter link right now.
00:22:05.000 It's 3 million views on this thing.
00:22:07.000 It's absolutely viral.
00:22:09.000 So let's go ahead and show while we're waiting for Julie some of these back and forths. 1.00
00:22:17.000 Let's go image 46.
00:22:19.000 So image 46 shows what the DOJ, on the left, you see what the DOJ and Jack Smith wanted to conceal. 0.96
00:22:27.000 Look at all that black. 0.99
00:22:29.000 Very, very DOJ, very government. 1.00
00:22:31.000 And on the right, now we know why.
00:22:34.000 This is what Julie Kelly writes: more proof of collaboration between the Biden White House and the NARA and NARA, which is the archives, to concoct a case.
00:22:48.000 All right.
00:22:48.000 So now let's go to image 49.
00:22:51.000 Oh, we do have Julie? 0.99
00:22:52.000 Go ahead and bring Julie on. 1.00
00:22:52.000 All right. 1.00
00:22:54.000 Julie Kelly from classified.live substack.
00:22:58.000 I think we're having some tech issues.
00:22:59.000 Thank you for joining, Julie.
00:23:01.000 I'm just going through these images.
00:23:02.000 So, you know, why don't you set the stage?
00:23:06.000 Why were these images redacted in the first case, in the first point?
00:23:11.000 And then why were they now unredacted?
00:23:13.000 And what do they show us?
00:23:14.000 Julie Kelly.
00:23:15.000 Right.
00:23:16.000 So sorry about that, Andrew.
00:23:17.000 It's one of those days, but at any rate, it steals the classified documents case, as you probably have already explained.
00:23:24.000 And it relates to a motion to compel that the defense filed back in January.
00:23:30.000 And this was a very lengthy motion.
00:23:32.000 Trump and his two co-defendants, their attorneys, asking Judge Aileen Cannon in Southern Florida to consider other federal agencies as part of the prosecution team.
00:23:43.000 This includes the National Archives, the DOJ Counterintelligence Unit, the FBI, the Secret Service, the intelligence community.
00:23:53.000 Many agencies, as you know, Andrew, that we've been hearing about for years have been conspiring behind the scenes to take down Donald Trump and anyone around him.
00:24:02.000 So, in this motion, and Jack Smith opposed, of course, this motion to compel, but there was all of this evidence that had been redacted under the existing protective order.
00:24:15.000 And the defense attorney said, we want these other agencies considered part of the government's prosecution team.
00:24:21.000 And we want this information that we have, either in discovery or from FOIA.
00:24:27.000 We want that unredacted.
00:24:29.000 And Judge Cannon sided with the defense.
00:24:32.000 And she has said multiple times in court, Andrew, and in her orders that she favors public transparency and the public's right to know, and of course, the defendant's right to know what evidence Jack Smith and the DOJ has.
00:24:47.000 So this has gone back and forth now for almost three months.
00:24:51.000 Judge Cannon finally ordered and authorized the unredactions and unsealing of a lot of this information, protecting certain names and personal identifying information, but otherwise allowing the public to see exactly what Jack Smith has and precisely what has been happening behind the scenes, including, most importantly, members of Joe Biden's White House, including his general counsel.
00:25:18.000 Yeah, I mean, this is really bombshell stuff because, again, you know, we've speculated a lot on this show about the possible collusion between the Fulton County prosecutor, D.A. Willis, and the White House counsel's office.
00:25:33.000 And we've, you know, Trump is very clear.
00:25:35.000 He said, this is all coming from Joe Biden.
00:25:37.000 This is all coming from the White House.
00:25:38.000 This is, he's coordinating all of these various lawfare efforts against the president.
00:25:44.000 And I think that's one of the most telling pieces of what you've uncovered here, Julie, by doing this back and forth, these images side by side, is you're able to see Jack Smith's logic of what he's redacted versus what was really hidden behind the redactions.
00:26:01.000 And one of the pieces, and I read through all of them that I thought was extraordinarily fascinating, was this issue of timelines.
00:26:08.000 And I'd like for you to walk us through this.
00:26:10.000 So Trump, when this whole thing came out and the raid on Mar-a-Lago, he said, listen, we were in negotiations with them.
00:26:16.000 And, you know, the government and all the mainstream media said, oh, that's bogus.
00:26:20.000 You know, he's not cooperating.
00:26:23.000 These documents tell a very different story that Trump was actually telling the truth.
00:26:27.000 He was cooperating.
00:26:28.000 And there is sort of a timeline expectation here where NARA and all these were saying, sometimes this takes a lot of time because when somebody leaves after one term, right?
00:26:38.000 Because if you leave after two terms, there's an expectation that your time is up.
00:26:41.000 You better get your documents in order.
00:26:43.000 Trump finds out, okay, I'm not going to be able to remain in the oval.
00:26:47.000 So got to rush, get everything out.
00:26:50.000 And they sort of said, when it's a one-term president, this timeline is very expanded.
00:26:54.000 Can you walk us through what the expectations of the timeline was?
00:26:57.000 And then all of a sudden, they lost patience.
00:27:00.000 Tell us about that.
00:27:01.000 Right.
00:27:01.000 Well, and this was really one of the stunning of many stunning passages is the National Archivist, David Ferrero, I believe is how you say his name, demanding that Donald Trump and his PRA, they called them Presidential Records Act's representatives.
00:27:19.000 Now, Donald Trump didn't pack up these boxes.
00:27:22.000 Really, it looks like there were long-term career employees at the White House who had packed up most of those boxes.
00:27:29.000 So he didn't know what was in these boxes or what was being transmitted.
00:27:33.000 All of a sudden, the National Archives starts demanding that he turn over.
00:27:37.000 First of all, they said that they wanted important presidential records that were missing.
00:27:42.000 So Trump's team said, okay, well, what are you looking for?
00:27:45.000 We'll help you.
00:27:46.000 Well, the letter that Barack Obama left for Donald Trump when he left office, you know, the standard transition letter from one president to the next, they claimed that that was government property.
00:27:58.000 Any correspondence between North Korea and the North Korean dictator, and get this, Andrew, remember Sharpie Gate, the map of, I think it was Hurricane Dorian that Donald Trump was marketing.
00:28:11.000 They claimed that that was a government record.
00:28:14.000 This is how desperate and how comical it was for the archives to come up and claim you took all of these government records and there are records and you need to return them, you know, the country's librarian.
00:28:27.000 But they were cooperating.
00:28:29.000 He had six people on his team, including it looks like Mark Meadows, who were working with NARA to try to get them whatever they thought that they needed.
00:28:40.000 Then they turned around and claimed the 25 boxes that they said were in the White House suddenly weren't accounted for.
00:28:49.000 So what it sounded like to me, Andrew, is in early 2021, when NARA was doing this to Donald Trump and working with members of Congress and then working with Joe Biden's Department of Justice to concoct, it looked like maybe a records destruction prosecution or investigation that they initially were concocting.
00:29:10.000 But it accelerated throughout 2021.
00:29:13.000 They were openly negotiating.
00:29:14.000 They were trying to figure out what NARA wanted.
00:29:17.000 NARA then was threatening by the summer that they were already creating, developing a criminal referral to send to DOJ related to who knows what, a missing map.
00:29:30.000 And so then in September of 2021, it looks like that is when the Biden White House general counsel, Jonathan Sue, got involved as well.
00:29:40.000 And so the idea that this was just the National Archives doing its job and enforcing the Presidential Records Act, of course, it wasn't.
00:29:48.000 It was a setup from the get-go, which is why Jack Smith wants this information concealed from the public.
00:29:54.000 Now it is not thanks to the courage of Judge Cannon.
00:29:57.000 And now we see emerging evidence once again, Andrew, of these powerful agencies, unaccountable bureaucrats like the National Archivist and members of top members of the FBI and DOJ concocting yet another scam criminal investigation and prosecution of Donald Trump.
00:30:16.000 Yeah, it almost seems like it was orchestrated before the normal timeline would have sort of come due, if you will.
00:30:23.000 Like they had an expectation this was going to be a drawn out process.
00:30:27.000 But then we find out, and this is what you write.
00:30:29.000 You said, contrary to public and legal assertions, NARA was working with DOJ White House to craft a criminal referral by September 2021, five months before the official referral by NARA to DOJ in February of 2022.
00:30:48.000 So the whole time, it's almost like they knew where they were going with this.
00:30:53.000 And they essentially said to the public, oh, they refused to negotiate.
00:30:58.000 No, they actually knew exactly where they wanted to go with this long before they stated publicly that there was an issue.
00:31:04.000 Is that basically what these documents uncover?
00:31:07.000 It does, absolutely.
00:31:08.000 And I have this up on Twitter, as you said.
00:31:10.000 And Donald Trump not only was cooperating, but turned over 15 boxes to NARA in January of 2022, probably a big mistake.
00:31:18.000 And that's when they claimed they saw classified records.
00:31:20.000 And then it was off to the races from that point.
00:31:23.000 It's really fascinating to me.
00:31:25.000 The timeline is interesting too.
00:31:28.000 I mean, again, Trump hadn't declared that he was going to run.
00:31:31.000 We didn't necessarily know if he was going to run at this time.
00:31:34.000 I mean, we've speculated that the reason he's experiencing all this law affair is because he chose to run again.
00:31:39.000 And he could have gone away and avoided all this, but they were developing these plan B's long, long ago.
00:31:48.000 Three-star general Michael J. Flynn, head of the Pentagon Intelligence Agency, knew all the government's dirty secrets.
00:31:55.000 He was one of the most respected generals in the military.
00:31:57.000 Flynn knew what the intel world had been up to.
00:32:00.000 He understood its funding.
00:32:01.000 He ordered the first audit of the use of contractors.
00:32:05.000 This set off alarm bells.
00:32:08.000 The explosive new documentary, Flynn, deliver the truth, whatever the cost, uncovers the facts behind this scandal.
00:32:15.000 Flynn told the truth.
00:32:16.000 He was the most dangerous person for Donald Trump to hire.
00:32:20.000 I find out the worst enemy that I'm going to face in my life is right here in America.
00:32:25.000 They took my assessment and they wanted me to change it.
00:32:28.000 I was like, I'm changing it.
00:32:29.000 They had to get rid of Flynn with in-depth interviews, archival footage, and never before seen personal record to the man behind the headlines.
00:32:37.000 I just felt like I was drowning.
00:32:39.000 Flynn, deliver the truth, whatever the cost.
00:32:42.000 Available now.
00:32:43.000 Watch it today.
00:32:44.000 Go to salemnow.com, salemnow.com.
00:32:51.000 Uh, Julie, so you right here, this has been sort of the headline that I've seen.
00:32:56.000 Uh, this has gotten written up in a lot of places.
00:32:59.000 So, congratulations on this story.
00:33:01.000 But you say, more new info from unredacted evidence in classified documents case within 24 hours of receiving 15 boxes from Mar-a-Lago.
00:33:10.000 Here is the assessment assessment by NARA.
00:33:13.000 Use a colorful word that I won't repeat, but you did put a little asterisk in there.
00:33:18.000 Good for you. 0.90
00:33:19.000 You called it a clown show. 0.78
00:33:21.000 So, what did they discuss?
00:33:22.000 I mean, they got these boxes and instantly started pouring through them.
00:33:25.000 What did they find?
00:33:27.000 So, this is David Fierro Ferrero for Yero.
00:33:27.000 He did.
00:33:31.000 I'll figure out how to say his last name.
00:33:33.000 So, within 24 hours, so he goes through, he dives into these boxes right away in the middle of January 2022.
00:33:39.000 He's finding a lot of personal items.
00:33:41.000 He's finding a lot of newspapers.
00:33:44.000 He's finding some records with Trump's handwritten notes on that.
00:33:48.000 Then, he claimed, Oh, there's I see a lot of classified papers in here.
00:33:52.000 Well, what does that mean?
00:33:54.000 Obviously, he has some sort of security clearance.
00:33:56.000 I believe he was in a skip as the archivist.
00:33:59.000 I assume that he does.
00:34:01.000 So, he's sending an email, breathless email within 24 hours.
00:34:05.000 You know, here's what I found in the boxes, and this.
00:34:08.000 And, you know, some of them are post-presidential, but also I see classified papers and I see, you know, special access program SAP, which is supposed to be high-level national defense information markings.
00:34:21.000 So, this was the bum rush, right?
00:34:23.000 This was not a careful process where he had a team of people, including people with high-level security clearances or investigators going through this.
00:34:33.000 He was the guy who got the goods.
00:34:36.000 He wanted to let people know, including individuals at the DOJ, this is what I've got.
00:34:42.000 And that really is what launched the criminal referral.
00:34:46.000 So, then the Department of Justice starts to take over.
00:34:49.000 And it appears that this was the Deputy Attorney General's office, Lisa Monaco, a longtime Obama loyalist, now number two at the Justice Department, really running the Justice Department.
00:35:01.000 And they are advising the archives the proper process to go through so DOJ can have their hands off of it off of this.
00:35:10.000 So, they say, okay, to NARA's general counsel, you need to contact your inspector general, then contact the intelligence community's inspector general.
00:35:21.000 Then, they are the ones who ultimately can be responsible for this criminal referral to the Department of Justice. 0.91
00:35:31.000 So this all behind the scenes chicanery led by the DOJ, one of the same individuals, Lisa Monaco, who was involved in, you know, the Russiagate hoax. 0.94
00:35:41.000 And this is how they created the on the classified documents investigation. 0.96
00:35:45.000 The FBI opens an investigation in February, and then Eric Garland puts his informator, authorizes it the end of March of 2022.
00:35:53.000 And when was the Mar-a-Lago raid?
00:35:56.000 That was in February?
00:36:00.000 August.
00:36:00.000 That's right.
00:36:01.000 Okay.
00:36:01.000 Gosh, it's all getting blurry now as the years go on.
00:36:05.000 So one of the pieces that's interesting here, and I'd love for your speculation.
00:36:12.000 You say you're still trying to figure it out.
00:36:14.000 You said despite extensive cooperation between the DOJ and NARA, the government in May of 2023 subpoenaed NARA.
00:36:21.000 So what happened here?
00:36:22.000 Was NARA trying to be like the voice of reason and the government's just so bloodthirsty to get Trump that NARA was getting in the way?
00:36:31.000 What happened here?
00:36:32.000 Right.
00:36:32.000 So I am still trying to figure that out, Andrew, most particularly because they mentioned crossfire hurricane records and the John Durham investigation.
00:36:43.000 So apparently, whenever NARA has to turn over records or they possess records, another agency asks for it.
00:36:49.000 They have to then alert the holder of the records, which would be Donald Trump.
00:36:54.000 So it's unclear if this subpoena is necessary.
00:36:58.000 NARA had been cooperating with the DOJ as we laid out then, you know, by that point over almost two years.
00:37:04.000 If they authorized the subpoena to avoid circumvent the notification process, or if they wanted some of these, it specifically asked for these responsive records, what they describe as crossfire hurricane papers.
00:37:21.000 So I'm a little unclear on this.
00:37:22.000 I'm trying to figure that out.
00:37:24.000 It's very important.
00:37:25.000 It is very comments on that.
00:37:29.000 I think one of the things we've missed here that really underscores just how, like I said, bloodthirsty the DOJ and the government was to get Trump is they called this whole case plasmic echo.
00:37:42.000 Plasmic Echo.
00:37:44.000 What the heck is that?
00:37:45.000 I mean, it doesn't make any sense.
00:37:46.000 But Julie, you've essentially uncovered that the White House was colluding on this and there was a whole get Trump DOJ collusion effort here.
00:37:55.000 And it's really remarkable.
00:37:56.000 So hat tip to you, Julie.
00:37:58.000 Thank you for bringing this to light.
00:37:59.000 Thank you for your time today.
00:38:00.000 I know it's in demand, especially after this story.
00:38:03.000 All right.
00:38:03.000 God bless you.
00:38:03.000 Thanks for having me.
00:38:05.000 Thanks, Julie.
00:38:08.000 Thanks so much for listening.
00:38:10.000 If this show means something to you, if you get something out of it, if it's a place of solace, of refuge, of calm in the midst of chaos, please consider joining members.charliekirk.com.
00:38:20.000 That's members.charliekirk.com, where you get exclusive access to Charlie, unlike anywhere else.
00:38:26.000 And you help us keep the lights on and you help us remain fearless in the face of censorship and boycotts and cancellations, which there are many.
00:38:36.000 Trust me, on the back end of this show, I see it all.
00:38:39.000 So please join members.charlikirk.com and help us out.
00:38:42.000 Thanks so much.
00:38:43.000 Talk to you soon.
00:38:46.000 For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.