Loading summary
Transcript295 lines
- [00:00]
Jay Beecher
This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.
- [00:23]
Charlie Kirk
The Charlie Kirk show starts now.
- [00:26]
Unknown Conservative Commentator
We should have a lot of the things that I think everybody wants to see. Who would not want voter id? Only somebody that wants to cheat. Think of it. We don't have voter id and the Democrats don't want it. And the reason they don't want is because they want to cheat, because there's no reason in the world. And I love that debate, Lindsey. I love saying, well, why don't you want voter id? And you watch them say, I don't know, I just made them vote, then it's a terrible thing.
- [00:56]
Charlie Kirk
So anyway, the American people demanded, demand Senate Majority Leader John Thune bring a vote on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility.
- [01:06]
Courtroom Attorney
Act, and let's have proof of citizenship to register to vote.
- [01:09]
Charlie Kirk
We have this one moment in history with Donald Trump at the helm with a trifecta Republican government. I say nuke the gosh darn filibuster, pass law after law after law. That interview went viral and senators went into action.
- [01:27]
Courtroom Attorney
However we do this, all right, whether.
- [01:29]
Charlie Kirk
It'S part of the spending bill this week, whether it's a separate bill, whether we have to stay there, you know, and do a standing filibuster, whatever it's.
- [01:38]
Courtroom Attorney
Going to take, we got to get this passed.
- [01:39]
Charlie Kirk
We've got to secure our elections.
- [01:41]
Courtroom Attorney
I can't imagine a Republican senator that would vote against, you know, making sure.
- [01:46]
Jay Beecher
You have to have proof of citizenship.
- [01:47]
Courtroom Attorney
To register and vote and to vote.
- [01:49]
Charlie Kirk
Well, how could anybody, I don't know how a Democrat could be against this. What exactly did you mean when you said that you should nationalize elections? And which, which 15 states are you talking.
- [01:57]
Unknown Conservative Commentator
I want to see elections. Be honest. And if a state can't run an election, I think the people behind me should do something about it. Because, you know, if you think about it, a state is an agent for the federal government in elections. I don't know why the federal government doesn't do them anyway, but when you see some of these states about how horribly they run their elections, what a disgrace it is. I think the federal government, when you see crooked elections, and we had plenty of them, and by the way, we had them last time. But go to 2020 and look at the facts that are coming. Rigged, crooked elections. If we have areas, take a look at Detroit, take a look at Pennsylvania, take a look at Philadelphia, you go take a look at Atlanta, look at some of the places that horrible corruption on elections and the federal government should not allow that. The federal government should get involved. These are Agents of the federal government to count the votes. If they can't count the votes legally and honestly, then somebody else should. Take.
- [02:56]
Charlie Kirk
The Constitution says it should be states that administer elections.
- [02:59]
Unknown Conservative Commentator
M. You know what? They can administer the election, but they have to do it honestly.
- [03:05]
Senator Tommy Tuberville
Democrats used to believe that border security and immigration enforcement were just common sense ideas.
- [03:12]
Tom Homan
Don't believe it.
- [03:13]
Jay Beecher
Take their word for it.
- [03:15]
Terrence Bates
Americans are right to demand better border.
- [03:18]
Charlie Kirk
Security and better enforcement of the immigration laws.
- [03:23]
Terrence Bates
We simply cannot allow people to pour.
- [03:25]
Charlie Kirk
Into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked.
- [03:30]
Terrence Bates
We've had 5 million undocumented workers come over the borders. It has become an extraordinary problem.
- [03:37]
Charlie Kirk
All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. And we must do more to stop them.
- [03:52]
Blake
Yes or no, Would you allow the cities to ignore the federal law?
- [03:56]
Investigator
No.
- [03:57]
Charlie Kirk
Any city should listen to the Department of Homeland Security. The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported. Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn't mean the child gets to stay. We do not think the comprehensive health care benefits should be extended to those who are undocumented workers and illegal aliens. We do not want to do anything to encourage more illegal immigration. People say, well, why can't you stop.
- [04:24]
Senator Tommy Tuberville
Illegal immigrants from coming here?
- [04:27]
Charlie Kirk
And the number one answer we give is when they come here, they can get jobs, get benefits against the law because of fraud.
- [04:33]
Senator Tommy Tuberville
Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple.
- [04:37]
Charlie Kirk
Open borders, you're doing away with the.
- [04:39]
Jay Beecher
Concept of a nation state.
- [04:40]
Terrence Bates
Our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.
- [04:53]
Senator Tommy Tuberville
For decades, these weren't controversial or radical ideas. The only thing that changed is them.
- [05:06]
Charlie Kirk
Every day is a battle for your mind. Raging information coming from every angle with the will to deceive. Fear not, you found the place for truth. The voice of a generation that still has the will to believe in the greatest country in the history of the world. This is the Charlie Kirk show. Buckle up. Here we go.
- [05:28]
Blake
All right.
- [05:29]
Charlie Kirk
Welcome to the Charlie Kirk show. We are on February 4th already. My goodness, where is the time going? Here at the Bitcoin.com studios in Phoenix, Arizona, we've got a lot to get to today. This is a jam packed show and I just want to preview that in hour two. We've got an incredible journalist that's been Covering the Epson saga for the last six years. He's basically interviewed everybody that there is to. To name in that, that whole saga. We're going to separate fact from fiction. There's a lot of, a lot of.
- [06:00]
Blake
Blurring, a lot of fact at this.
- [06:01]
Charlie Kirk
Point and a lot of, a lot of fiction. And by the way, there's no need for lies because the truth is just as sensational as the lie. But there's a lot of lies. A lot of lies. I've been working on this. I told you guys yesterday, we're going to do it right today. So we're going to do that in hour two. But I just want to just, you know, earmuffs for the little kids. There's going to be some graphic nature just given the nature of the story. So please, if you're watching at home with young ones, just please consider that we're going to do our best to navigate it and be professional. Charlie would always say 11 year olds. We always think about the 11 year old in the, in the audience. So we're going to try and keep that, keep that rule at the top of our minds. But it is a, it is a graphic story. So we're going to get into it. Hour one. We're going to, we're going to get right into it. Yesterday there was a preliminary hearing with Tyler Robinson, the accused killed killer. I certainly believe he's guilty of sin. And then we're gonna have Senator Coach Tuberville. Tuberville, who's gonna be joining us, talking about the SAVE Act. So lots to get to. Without further ado, I'm gonna throw it over to Blake because Blake had the job of going over that through all four hours of the hearing yesterday.
- [07:07]
Blake
Alrighty. So this is not the trial itself. We'll obviously be covering the trial every day once it happens. This is yet another preliminary hearing. There's been a lot of these, you've heard about them, where they've been trying to keep cameras out of the courtroom. They've been litigating how exactly Robinson will be dressed when he's in the courtroom and so on. And what the claim yesterday was is they're making a bid, they being the defense team, to disqualify the entire county attorney's office from prosecuting this case. So these are the county attorney's office for Utah County.
- [07:40]
Charlie Kirk
Can I stop us right there? Because there's. If you go on the Internet, it's like the FBI. The FBI, the FBI. This is not a federal case. This is being tried at the local.
- [07:49]
Blake
Level, the FBI assisted in the initial investigation. Conceivably there could be federal charges someday, you never know. Like, for example, if something went awry with this. But right now, this is a state case in Utah, Utah county, that's where Provo is, I believe, and one of the largest counties, but it's not Salt Lake. And so they've been handling this case. And what has emerged is that the daughter of one of the prosecutors on the team was present at the shooting. And so the defense team is arguing that based on this fact alone, that she was one of 3,000 people there, approximately, that it should, it creates a conflict of interest and it should disqualify the entire county attorney's office, which if they succeed, it would mean it would have to be taken over by either another county attorney's office or by the state.
- [08:38]
Charlie Kirk
Huge delay, huge delay.
- [08:40]
Blake
Messes everything up, Just drags the case out more, creates more uncertainty. That's entirely what their plan is. Now, thankfully, legal experts who've commented on this say this is a pretty big long shot. It'd be one thing if she was one of the one or two witnesses to the event. Right, of course, 3,000 people. And plus everyone saw it very quickly online. And so the claim that there's some sort of special aspect that is a long shot, but they were asking them about it in court yesterday. And what's interesting about it is it gives us an insight as to what evidence they've collected so far, what they're planning to bring, and also what the defense against it might be. So, for example, they had Agent David Hull, one of the investigators, they had him on the stage and they were just cross examining him. Yeah, the state itself was actually cross examining him about all the evidence they'd found. Because they're pointing out, did any of this have anything to do with the daughter at all? And he's saying no over and over again.
- [09:36]
Charlie Kirk
So, yes, by the way, this was a surprise to some of us because, you know, we've been told that the preliminary hearing where, where the evidence will be sort of first presented is not going to be until May. So we got to see this little small glimpse into some of the way the defense is thinking, some of the way the prosecution is thinking early.
- [09:54]
Blake
Yeah. So, for example, they're just, they're going back and forth on the evidence they have, like the fact that they found what they, for example, were able to find in Tyler Robinson's apartment. Let's show 388 was a search warrant.
- [10:07]
Courtroom Attorney
On, on the defendant's House executed in this case?
- [10:11]
Investigator
It was, yes, down in St. George.
- [10:13]
Courtroom Attorney
And it was evidence obtained from his house?
- [10:15]
Investigator
It was, yes.
- [10:16]
Courtroom Attorney
What kind of evidence?
- [10:20]
Investigator
Kind of putting me on the spot. But if I recall, there were some bullet casings that had some inscriptions on. There were some tools that were believed to have been used to make those inscriptions. There were targets, I believe, that had been used, and also targets that had been purchased recently or just prior to the event. There was ring doorbell, camera footage obtained from other residences down there, and then a number of electrical items, laptops and such that were collected as part of the warrant.
- [10:57]
Blake
So we have that. For example, we also have. They just talk about finding DNA at the scene. For example, 385 is DNA consistent with.
- [11:06]
Courtroom Attorney
The defendant's DNA found on the firearm that was found at the scene?
- [11:11]
Investigator
Yes, the DNA on the firearm was consistent with that of Mr. Robinson.
- [11:15]
Blake
And then interestingly, they follow up on that where then the defense team shows up and they try to do some back and forth on this. Let's do 387.
- [11:24]
Charlie Kirk
Are you aware that DNF, the DNA evidence that was seized from the scene consisted of a mixture of at least five different individuals?
- [11:32]
Investigator
I'm not a DNA expert, so.
- [11:35]
Charlie Kirk
So you know enough to say what helps him, but you're not going to answer whether or not there were five individuals mixed into that DNA?
- [11:40]
Investigator
I'm not aware of that, no.
- [11:42]
Blake
Okay. And you're certainly not qualified to interpret complex DNA mixtures, are you?
- [11:47]
Investigator
No, I'm not.
- [11:47]
Blake
Okay. It's a little bizarre that they're going that intently at it in what is, again, a preliminary hearing yet I guess that's a sign of what we might have to expect when this finally goes to full trial. They're gonna try to muddle the waters on DNA evidence.
- [12:03]
Charlie Kirk
There's a ton of reasons why you would find multiple DNA, multiple people's DNA on a. On anything, actually, because people shed DNA. But to see one with a pattern that's connected to multiple different scenes, multiple different places, plus all the other evidence that there is, including video evidence, by the way, there's a clip on video evidence that we have. Right.
- [12:23]
Blake
I'm trying to get the exact number because it's not. I don't see it in our sheet. But they had a back and forth where they. They just asked him because they're. The reason they're asking this is they're diving into. They're kind of unpacking. You didn't catch this person because of a video taken by the daughter in question. In fact, she didn't have a video of the shooting itself.
- [12:41]
Charlie Kirk
So I think it's 390. Actually, this is Agent hall responds to video on the rooftop. Explains two different recordings.
- [12:47]
Courtroom Attorney
300, that roof, that was recorded in that video first. Is there other surveillance of that person, A person in that location at that time running to that spot?
- [13:00]
Investigator
There is additional footage, yes.
- [13:01]
Courtroom Attorney
Where does that come from?
- [13:03]
Investigator
That came from the Utah Valley University security cameras.
- [13:07]
Courtroom Attorney
All right, is there another individual that also recorded a person running after the shooting from the roof?
- [13:17]
Investigator
Not to my recollection, no.
- [13:18]
Courtroom Attorney
Any video from someone. You recall a video from someone in the hall of Flags who may have recorded someone running after the shooting?
- [13:25]
Investigator
Yes, there was an individual who recorded from the hall of Flags. It's an interior video looking through the windows. But I believe an individual is visible on the rooftop also in that video.
- [13:38]
Blake
Now there was another though, where they, they just asked him, do you have other stuff? And he says, actually we have a ton of surveillance footage from the university of someone, you know, kind of tracing the suspect off campus. And then he says they have ring doorbell footage from Orem. Not just we knew about from St. George's where, you know, around that area, but they also apparently have some from the vicinity of the shooting tracing the suspect into the woods where they later found the firearm. They have, they say they have security footage at businesses on the road back from Orem to St. George where. So you get the sense, we don't know it all for sure, that they have a very strong documentary record of basically everywhere Tyler Robinson was. We haven't seen all of those videos. We'll presumably see them on the actual trial.
- [14:24]
Charlie Kirk
But it felt like the big headline from this is it really came into focus that they are trying to get the entire prosecution dismissed because one team member, and this was a handpicked crew of prosecutors. One of these prosecutors happened to have an 18 year old daughter on the scene that day. We'll play more video on the other side of this break. We'll be right back. All right, welcome back to the Charlie Kirk Show. I want to tell you about our friends over at why Refi. If you find yourself burdened by a mountain of private student loan debt, you do not have to do this. You do not have to live this way anymore. The folks over at Y Refi wake up every morning. They go to their jobs and they want to take care of you. So if you are depressed, stressed, even if you're suicidal, my goodness, if that is you, that is, you do not have to be that way. You do not have to live your life feeling like there's no future. Like your financial situation has gotten so out of hand that there's no reason to go on this. And I say this, it's morbid. But I just heard so many stories about this, it's crazy. You do not have to live this way. There is hope. So call them at y refi. Go 888 y refi 34 or visit them@yrefi.com that's what they do. They take your private student loans that are distressed or in default and they refinance them. Doesn't matter what your credit score is. They'll work with you. They'll get you a solution and they'll get you a monthly payment you can manage. Okay, so there is a solution. There's light at the end of the tunnel. Yrefi.com 888Y refi 34 and they are patriots. They really care about you. And they're really just really good people. Just phenomenal, phenomenal people. You can take my word for it. Absolutely. To the bank. So check them out. Why? Revi.com 888yrefi34 all right, so we're gonna keep going through some of these clips because we got a lot of clips here.
- [16:23]
Blake
So we've got again, part of their argument they're claiming is this is a little. The argument defense is making that they wouldn't be pursuing the death penalty in this case if not for the personal dimension that the. One of the attorney's daughters was there.
- [16:38]
Charlie Kirk
A clip of that.
- [16:38]
Blake
That's what pushed him over there. And so they asked him about. They asked. This is now the county attorney, Jeffrey Gray, who was, among other things, he. They point out he ran on a campaign promise to pursue the death penalty in appropriate cases. And one, because they're elected. And he ran on that. And so they asked him about this. 389 I'm going to refer to the.
- [16:58]
Courtroom Attorney
Prosecutor in your office whose child was present at the shooting as Prosecutor A. Do you know who I'm talking about?
- [17:05]
Jay Beecher
Yes.
- [17:06]
Courtroom Attorney
Have you ever met Prosecutor A's child that was present at that shooting?
- [17:10]
Charlie Kirk
Not that I could remember. I could have in passing, but not that I can remember.
- [17:15]
Courtroom Attorney
Did Prosecutor did the presence of Prosecutor A's child have any effect on the decisions you've made in this case?
- [17:23]
Tom Homan
Zero.
- [17:25]
Courtroom Attorney
Did that child's presence have any effect on your decision to seek the death penalty?
- [17:31]
Tom Homan
Zero.
- [17:31]
Courtroom Attorney
Why did you choose to seek the death penalty in this case?
- [17:33]
Jay Beecher
Because the evidence that had been gathered.
- [17:37]
Charlie Kirk
Supports the aggravated murder charge. And I believe that the death penalty.
- [17:42]
Jay Beecher
Is entirely appropriate in this particular case.
- [17:47]
Charlie Kirk
That's a good answer.
- [17:48]
Blake
Yeah, it's a good answer. I'd say throughout this, I feel a lot of confidence. I mean, let's just compare with for example, the big Fanny Willis, the proceedings in that related the prosecution of Trump. A complete farce. You have. They're bringing. She's bringing in her boyfriend for support on this case and just funneling money.
- [18:06]
Charlie Kirk
Getting up, watching the.
- [18:07]
Blake
Yeah, everyone's. It's just a giant feeding frenzy of incompetence and corruption. I feel very much here watching this hearing. Everyone seems very professional. They seem very sober. This is the team you would want handling this.
- [18:20]
Charlie Kirk
Everything feels measured.
- [18:22]
Blake
Yes.
- [18:22]
Charlie Kirk
Nobody's being over. Over their skis. Nobody's getting over the top. It's just very by the book professional. You can tell everybody's. And by the way, there's a whole game that goes on behind the scenes where the defense is trying to get the prosecution to trip up so that they can reverse the just, you know, the guilty verdict that we're presuming is going to come on appeal, that they can get them on a technicality. So everybody's trying to do everything by the book. This is frustrating for us because we want to see justice done immediately. As a matter of fact, Erica Kirk has put in a statement saying, you know, as a she, they have victim rights in the state of Utah, so she's able to assert her victim rights, saying, I want a speedy trial, speedy justice, but they have to keep that in balance to make sure they don't overdo it and rush too fast so that to give the defense an excuse to again reverse it on appeal.
- [19:10]
Blake
I have a couple more clips we want to hit. So I want. I mentioned this in the last one, but I wanted to get to it. This is Agent hall again talking about the ring doorbell footage they were able to get. 426.
- [19:21]
Courtroom Attorney
You said you collected surveillance evidence from Utah Valley University, is that right?
- [19:26]
Investigator
That's correct.
- [19:27]
Courtroom Attorney
Did that give you some additional information on identifying the shooter?
- [19:31]
Investigator
It did, yes.
- [19:34]
Courtroom Attorney
How about doorbell cameras for the the areas around Utah Valley University?
- [19:38]
Investigator
Yes, we collected a large number of doorbell camera footage from multiple residences in the area, not just in Orem, but also in St. George. And we also recovered video footage from multiple businesses in the area of the university campus in Orem and also from businesses between Orem and St. George. So there's a large amount of video footage obtained.
- [20:06]
Courtroom Attorney
And did those help you identify the shooter?
- [20:09]
Investigator
They did yes.
- [20:11]
Blake
So we know obviously they have some of this. Some of this has actually already come out.
- [20:15]
Charlie Kirk
Like, some of it we haven't seen. Some of that we haven't seen public. So including some of the surveillance footage from campus. And then, by the way, there's a clip here talking about all of the social media and text messages that they've collected. 392 text messages.
- [20:34]
Courtroom Attorney
Did you collect text messages from associates of Tyler Robinson?
- [20:40]
Investigator
We did, yes.
- [20:41]
Courtroom Attorney
And did those.
- [20:43]
Charlie Kirk
What was the.
- [20:44]
Courtroom Attorney
Did those have any evidentiary value?
- [20:46]
Investigator
They did, yes.
- [20:47]
Courtroom Attorney
What's. How.
- [20:48]
Investigator
So some of the communications between Mr. Robinson and people that he knew indicated that he had been involved in the incident at Utah Valley University.
- [20:59]
Courtroom Attorney
Okay, and you say that indicated he'd been involved. What do you mean by that?
- [21:02]
Investigator
There was. I don't recall specifically with text messages, but some of the social media chats, there were admissions that he had been involved in the incident as the shooter.
- [21:14]
Blake
So all of this, some of it is insight into what will go into the trial. But we shouldn't forget what actually brought this, which the defense team openly admits is the point of this, is to drag things out, throw in uncertainty, delay the trial, delay justice. And what seems, I think you and I both agree, it looks like a pretty open and shut case overall. But the goal is delay. And in fact, they admit that themselves. Let's play 394.
- [21:40]
Charlie Kirk
We understand that there is pressure on the judicial system to move this case expeditiously. There is also a countervailing and we believe stronger need to make sure that there's a heightened standard of reliability, that there is no conflict and that there is no appearance of conflict. And if that takes a little bit of time for another prosecution office to get up to speed, the investigation is going to continue, the discovery production is going to continue, the lab work is going to continue. None of that is going to change.
- [22:23]
Blake
Just give us a little bit of.
- [22:24]
Charlie Kirk
Time to get a whole new prosecution. That's an obscene request, in my opinion. And then there's this whole other storyline, by the way, where they don't want still images of Mr. Robinson in the media. They have grave concerns, they say, of huge photographic lenses focused on the client, which will interfere with his right to a fair trial. We don't have enough time to play that clip here because we're just coming up against a break. But these are the central dynamics that we're just getting the first insight of now. Very telling about how they're going to proceed now in their defense.
- [22:59]
Blake
The judge says he's going to rule on this specific request in about three weeks. I think on the 24th, he'll issue a written ruling. We'll also get a ruling on the filming of the proceedings and so forth around then. But we're going to remain on this.
- [23:12]
Charlie Kirk
We, we, we are asking for cameras in that courtroom 100%. Coach Tuberville next.
- [23:29]
Terrence Bates
Welcome back to this REAL America's Voice news break. I'm Terrence Bates. It has been a very busy day for the Trump administration when it comes to illegal immigration and border security. Just moments ago, we took you to we took you to Arizona live where DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was speaking about border security, more specifically about continuing to build the border wall along that stretch. She also used the opportunity to praise many of the Border Patrol and immigration ice, excuse me, agents who are working along that area. She, of course, said that they've been doing a very good job and pointed out some specific instances thereof. In the meantime, the Department of Homeland Security also cutting the number of federal agents deployed to Minneapolis by some 700. That's the word from border czar Tom Homan this morning as he is now overseeing the illegal immigration operation in the Twin Cities. Homan also saying that while his focus remains on catching and deporting violent criminal illegal aliens, anyone in the country illegally is a target.
- [24:28]
Tom Homan
I keep hearing it and hearing it and hearing it. We're not surrendering the president's mission on a mass deportation operation. If you're in the country illegally, if we find you, we'll deport you. But this is about target enforcement operation. And that's what we're going to be doing.
- [24:46]
Terrence Bates
While the border czar is working to shore up operations in Minneapolis, the vice president's focus today is on rare earth minerals.
- [24:53]
Charlie Kirk
So this morning, the Trump administration is proposing a concrete mechanism to return the global critical minerals market to a healthier, more competitive state, a preferential trade zone for critical minerals protected from external disruptions through enforceable price floors.
- [25:11]
Terrence Bates
And in other headlines this morning, former President Bill Clinton and his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are set to testify before Congress related to the body's ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. The former first lady is scheduled to be deposed February 26th. Her husband will face the House Oversight Committee the very next day. The agreement for the former first couple to testify avoids a contempt of Congress vote which was scheduled to happen today. You probably remember the House Oversight Committee voted to hold the duo in contempt after they failed to show up for their previously scheduled deposition last month. Now the Clintons appear to be singing A new tune, though. That's a quick check of your headlines. I'm Terrence Bates.
- [26:05]
Charlie Kirk
It's time for a whole new generation to wise up and rise up. The Charlie Kirk Show.
- [26:12]
Senator Tommy Tuberville
All right.
- [26:12]
Charlie Kirk
Welcome back to the Charlie Kirk Show. We are honored to be joined by the one and only coach, Tommy Tuberville out of the great state of Alabama. And he's a great senator. Sad to lose him in the Senate, but he's running for governor of that great state. Coach, welcome back to the show.
- [26:30]
Senator Tommy Tuberville
Thanks. Glad to be here. I hope everything's going good with y'.
- [26:33]
Jay Beecher
All.
- [26:34]
Senator Tommy Tuberville
We finally got a little ice moved out here in around our building so we can, we can move around so we can communicate up here at clown show.
- [26:43]
Charlie Kirk
Are you in the clown show? Are you back down south right now, I'm assuming?
- [26:48]
Senator Tommy Tuberville
Yeah, I'm in D.C. it's, it's one thing or another up here, but we're making progress. We've funded the government. How about that?
- [26:55]
Charlie Kirk
Well, that's, that's a, not, not a small miracle this day and age. Coach, everybody wants to know about the SAVE Act. Is it going to be brought for a vote? Is it going to be pushed forward? Is Thune going to get behind it? Please just lay it out for our audience because this is one of the most massively popular agenda items according to Americans, if you poll it. And yet DC Just can't seem to get out of their own way.
- [27:20]
Senator Tommy Tuberville
No, no. And we're scared to death of the Democrats because they pretty much control, you know, what we do and don't do in the Senate because we got to have a few of them vote with us. And nobody wants to put a vote on the floor. That's not going to pass. Of course, Chuck Schumer spoiled party when he says, you know, I'm get one Democrat vote. And so it's not going to work. You know, it's not rocket science. It's common sense. There's two things that the American people want, especially in my state of Alabama. They won't close the borders, and they want to have fair voting. And President Trump has done a miraculous job of closing the border. Nobody knows in. Of course, he's trying to kick people out, which he should continue to do. That's the way I look at it. But the other one is we got to help president out on this because we've got people up here in the House and the Senate that shouldn't be here because there's blue states that have rigged the elections. There's no doubt now we've seen the evidence. Voting machines, harvest balloting, vote 10 or 15 times, illegals voting. We have got to do something about these blue states. And we all want to say, you know, let's let their states control their own voting. If we do that, we will lose majority. A minority majority will lose in the House, the Senate, and I don't know whether we can win another presidency if we don't get the Save act through through Congress and signed by President Trump.
- [28:46]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah, no, I completely agree. The Save act, it's just. It's one of these frustrations that the base, everybody should have with D.C. now, I know you've got to be collegial. I know you have to. These are your colleagues in the Senate. And the Senate has a certain decorum, which I can appreciate. But help me understand where Leader Thune is at on this issue. Are we gonna see a vote? Are we gonna get rid of the zombie filibuster to have this vote? Do you feel the courage welling up inside the man's chest or help us understand where we're at?
- [29:24]
Senator Tommy Tuberville
Well, Thune's in a tough spot because the president wants this voted on, but he knows it won't pass because we gotta have 60 votes. The only way to pass this is to bust the filibuster. And we've got 10 or 15 people up here, maybe even more than that, on the Republican side that basically said we're not going to bust the filibuster. And so if we don't do that, that means we won't get anything else done in the Senate or the House or the White House for President Trump unless an executive order. We're done. Now, they say we have one more reconciliation that's 51 votes, but I see very little work done on that. But, you know, I was not for busting the filibuster, but after listening to these crazies on the left, it's not the Democrats anymore, it's the Democrat Socialist Party of America on the left. And even the Democrats have moved that way. And I know they don't believe in all of it, but to get reelected. And that's what. But that's what this business is in D.C. it's, hey, we want to get reelected where we have more power. It's not about doing what's right for the American people. So we, if we're going to help President Trump, we've got to have enough people step up and say, okay, you know, let's get this done. 51 votes. Because if we don't, the Very first thing that the Democrats will do when they take power, and they'll bust a filibuster. And I don't know whether we'll ever gain any power back because after that, they will change everything they possibly can. With 51 votes in the Senate.
- [30:54]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah. So, you know, we had Senator Mark Wayne Mullen on talking about potentially including us in a reconciliation bill, but you're saying you haven't seen much work done on that. That's, that's discouraging. If we could get to 50 plus 1, the house has already passed this. I just, I mean, I hate.
- [31:16]
Blake
Very frustrating.
- [31:17]
Charlie Kirk
Very frustrating.
- [31:18]
Blake
Frustrating to hear we can't pass controversial stuff because there will be backlash and we'll lose the election. But now we're at the point where we can't pass overwhelmingly popular stuff because.
- [31:28]
Charlie Kirk
There'Ll be backlash and something. Yeah, well, this is what's wild, too, Senator, is that we have, you know, you got, you got 76% of black voters support voter ID. You've got, you know, well over 80% of all American voters that support voter ID, and yet the Democrats are obstructing it. And you have to just sort of scratch your head and ask why? Because what do they know that their own voters don't know? And the only answer to that question is not a good answer. It's not a happy answer for this country. It does not bode well for our future. And I would simply submit to your colleagues in the Senate that are blocking this that there's a very good chance that you don't win reelection if you don't have free and fair elections, if you don't insist upon seeing and proving somebody's identity and that they're a citizen. Would you agree?
- [32:18]
Senator Tommy Tuberville
Oh, 100%. If we don't pass the SAVE Act, I think it's over. I just don't see us having fair elections in enough states to where, you know, we can maintain the seats we have, much less take any. There's no way in the state of Georgia we should have two senators that are Democrats. No way. There is no way in the state of Arizona we should have two Democrats. There's no way. Same way with Nevada. If you look at some of these other states, it is, and we are losing fast. Now, I don't know what Mark Wayne Mullen was saying, but in a reconciliation bill, you can't put something like the SAVE act in there. It has to be about budget, has to be about money. And this is not about money.
- [33:00]
Charlie Kirk
Well, his, in his defense, his, his point was that there would be cost in sort of federalizing certain aspects of the election at the state level. So you could.
- [33:09]
Senator Tommy Tuberville
I guess I would love to do that.
- [33:11]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The question, yeah. The question then becomes, can you get it done before September time period? And is that enough time to, you know, put it, put it into action in the states, there'd be lawsuits. Who knows? Who knows? But if we get it done now, I completely agree with you. This is, this is existential for the country. And you've got all these blue states that are losing voters, they're moving to red states. If we had a proper census in 2020, we'd already be there where the blue wall would be out of play. Wouldn't even matter. If you just hold the Sun Belt, you win the national election. And so they're moving out, we're winning voter reg battles all across the country. And yet somehow, you know, we've got this party that's importing voters. They're mostly being protected in blue jurisdictions and sanctuary jurisdictions. And you just have to start wondering, you know, it's all rigged. We can see that it's rigged. You don't even have to get into tabulators, you don't have to get into vote switching. You don't have to get into any of the controversial, the really controversial stuff, which I believe there's a lot. There's. You could just simply look at the policies of the left and Democrat Party protecting. And by the way, coach, they're literally going with married women and black people are too dumb to get voter ID to get an ID. That's their whole pitch, Jim Crow 2.0. It's just so cynical and dumb at this point.
- [34:33]
Senator Tommy Tuberville
Yeah, here's the way you gotta look at it, okay? The Democratic Socialist Party now has transitioned. They're losing minority votes. President Trump got more black votes in the history of a presidential election. Right. They lose in middle class votes. Democrats used to be for the working man that's come over to the Republican side. So the new girlfriend for the Democrat Socialist Party is illegal aliens. They gotta have them because they're losing a lot of votes out of those other two groups coming. Republican going back to actually voting for American of the way of life. So the Democrats have to have the, their, their new girlfriend, the illegal aliens. And so that's what you're seeing happen in Minneapolis. You're seeing the same thing happen in California, in New York. And that's a reason they have to keep the SAVE act from going across the finish line. Because if that happens, their New girlfriend is going to find a new boyfriend. It's going to be out of this country, is going to be Republicans.
- [35:39]
Charlie Kirk
So President Trump has been calling for the, and I love the way he said that, by the way, the new girlfriend. We're going to steal that with attribution when I remember, Coach. But President Trump is calling for the federalization of elections. You know, you could do that through an eo, but it would be much better to have it, you know, done through Congress. I think that is probably a far cry as well. If we can't even get the SAVE act done, what do you. Do you support that? And what would that even look like if instituted?
- [36:09]
Senator Tommy Tuberville
Well, you talk about federalized elections. Yeah, that's what they say.
- [36:13]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah, because President Trump was saying that they are agents of the federal government when they're conducting federal elections. So the federal government has a role to play in overseeing local elections because they're not doing it right. In places like Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta, there's so many issues of states and, and municipalities proving that they cannot competently run an election that includes federal offices.
- [36:36]
Senator Tommy Tuberville
Yeah, well, you're not going to have a fair election as long as you don't have ID for voting. You not going to have a fair election if you have harvest balloting. That's not going. You're not going to have a fair election if you have these machines. We've got to do away with them. I know this is the 21st century, but folks, we're smart enough to have a ballot, paper ballot. You go market, you turn it in and you go home. And you also do it in a one day period, not this week or two weeks. It's nonsense to do what we're doing in these blue states. And you know, again, they are rigged. These things are rigged. We can't win. And again, I just sick to death about what happened in Georgia. You know, when, when I won in 2020, President Trump called me at 9 o' clock after I won and congratulations, Coach. I said, how's it going? Said, I'm doing great in all the swing states. I'm 300,000 up here, 400,000, 500,000 up in Georgia, and he loses all of them. And how does that happen? They cheated him. We all know that. And the mainstream media just, just hit the ceiling if you say something like that. But folks, facts is facts. You know, all you got to do now is look at the videos, all the information coming out. You know, there was Republicans that were sued and, and went to jail for this nonsense. And again, we Got to take our country back. We got to quit playing soft. And that's the reason we don't bust this filibuster. We're just handed on a silver platter to the Democrats, the United States of America, to turn socialist and communist. And if we're telling you it's coming in and. Exactly. And I'm sick of all that. I mean, this is a country of. That was built by our forefathers and we're not going to give it up. Christianity built this country. We're not going to give it to a group of people like you just said, these Islamic terrorists who are coming here to not assimilate, but to tear it down. And just look in Texas. My God, they, they have taken over cities in Texas, the Deep South. It just makes me sick at my stomach.
- [38:41]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah. Senator, I wanted to talk more about Sharia law, but I'm running out of time. But God bless you. Keep fighting. Pass the save act. Find a way. Do what you got to do. Senator, thank you.
- [38:52]
Senator Tommy Tuberville
Yeah, we got to get it across the go line. Thank you.
- [38:54]
Charlie Kirk
God bless you. We'll be right back.
- [39:07]
Senator Tommy Tuberville
All right.
- [39:08]
Charlie Kirk
Welcome back to the Charlie Kirk show and tell you guys about Strong Cell. By the way. I get calls from these guys. It's amazing. This stuff is flying off the shelf because of you and this audience. And that's, that's great. Testament to the power of this audience. And I'm, I'm just loving it. I'm here for it. And Charlie, love this product. I love this product. If you are struggling with brain fog, fatigue, lack of energy, if you have a constant illness and you can't figure out what it's from, it could be that you need a very important enzyme called nadh. And what makes Strong Cell very effective is that it has come up with a proprietary delivery of this enzyme called nadh, which is the power source for every cell in your body. So if you want more energy, if you're feeling kind of low energy, sluggish fatigue, check out Strongcell. And here's the best part. When you do it through this show and with the promo code, Charlie, @strongcell.com, you get 20% off. So right off the top, 20% discount. And it's risk free. So you get a 90 day money back guaranteed trial period. 90 days. You need to take this for about four to six weeks. Once a day, just a little, little bottle. You shoot it just. It tastes great, but it's got this nadh enzyme that's gonna help and it delivers it straight to Your cell. So it's at the cellular level. And promo code Charlie at checkout, 20%, 90 day money back guarantee. But you need to take it for about four to six weeks. You do it for four to six weeks, be disciplined, you take it daily. It will change your life. I really believe that. And if you don't, and if you don't get the results that you want, if that I'm saying you're probably gonna get, you can send it back, money back guarantee. So strongcell.com promo code Charlie. Check it out today. Amazing people that run that company as well. Let's get into. Tom Homan held a press conference in Minneapolis this morning. He obviously was deployed by the president to kind of tighten the ship.
- [41:04]
Blake
Yep. So we had the clashes between ICE and all of the agitators. Agitators, The Communists, insurrectionists.
- [41:13]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah.
- [41:14]
Blake
In Minneapolis. And the goal is have fewer controversies and still make sure that people are. People who don't belong in this country are getting out of this country. Now, part of what people have seen, and we should lead with this, is he has announced they surged 7,000 people into the Minneapolis.
- [41:31]
Charlie Kirk
3,000. Was it 3,000?
- [41:33]
Blake
Maybe it's 3,000. But he's announced that they're dialing back that amount of surge. And so he has a big headline for 17.
- [41:40]
Tom Homan
I have announced, effective immediately, we will draw down 700 people, effective today, 700 law enforcement personnel.
- [41:51]
Charlie Kirk
Okay.
- [41:52]
Blake
Now the why, the why is coming down. And also just keep in mind that this has to happen at some point. We're not going to perpetually keep 15, 20% of ICE in Minneapolis, as satisfying as that might be sometimes. But he explains that the reason they're able to pull these out is that they're getting new, new cooperation from the state of Minnesota, the city of Minneapolis, that they previously were not able to get. So this is 418.
- [42:19]
Tom Homan
We currently have an unprecedented number of counties communicating with us now and allowing ICE to take custody of illegal aliens before they hit the streets. Unprecedented cooperation. Now, say it again, this is efficient. Requires only one or two officers to assume custody of a criminal alien target, rather than eight or 10 officers going into the community and arresting that public safety threat. This frees up more officers to arrest or remove criminal aliens. More officers. Taking custody of criminal aliens directly from the jails means less officers on the street doing criminal operations. This is smart law enforcement, not less law enforcement.
- [43:08]
Charlie Kirk
And it's worth saying Tom Homan is very. Gosh, I just think he's the. He's so disciplined in his role. That is what's so Tom. Tom Holman is a field general. We love Tom. He's been on the show multiple times. He loved Charlie. Charlie loved Tom. And we continue that relationship with Tom. So he's great. He's a. But he's a field general. But more importantly for this role right now is he's a great, disciplined messenger. And so, of course, all of us in the base are going, hey, hey, hey, you're drawn back. Was it not? You know, is it only the worst? First, because I'm an all of them guy. I'll just be really clear. You break our laws, you invade our country, you participate in the erasure of the American culture that we love and we want to defend for our next generation, our kids and our grandkids. You come in this country like that, Heck, no. You're out. There's no negotiation. There's no sob story that's gonna move me off that point, okay? You do not bend the knee to these terrorists. So Tom, being the great messenger that he is, made sure he addressed exactly that concern. 409. Clip clip 409.
- [44:20]
Tom Homan
For those who are not a national security threat or public safety, public safety risk, you are not exempt from immigration enforcement actions. If you're in the country legally. You are not off the table. And let me be clear. President Trump fully intends to achieve mass deportations during this administration, and immigration enforcement actions will continue every day throughout this country.
- [44:44]
Charlie Kirk
So let me explain why this is important, what's happening here, and why the base needs to get behind what Tom's doing with the drawdown. Now, it was BBC, it was NBC, it was Washington Post. All of them led with the drawdown. So why is that important? Because. And Breitbart had a great piece on this. It's that the poll shows the majority of voters back President Trump's immigration policy, even despite all this media magnified Democrat claims that the enforcement is hurting his poll numbers. What they don't like is they don't like seeing the stuff in the streets. Okay? There's normies. I personally have no problem with it. Let me just be very clear. I have zero problem with it. But there's normies, there's independents. All of them support mass deportations. They want to get illegals out, but they don't want to see the images. And the Democrats know that. So they want to weaponize the images. So we got to make it so that they can't do that.
- [45:35]
Jay Beecher
All right?
- [45:35]
Charlie Kirk
You got to be thinking strategically and the chess moves ahead of time.
- [45:39]
Blake
But there's there's stuff to flag here which, so again, you need fewer agents. It's vastly less disruptive and vastly, like, more focused on the worst actors when you're letting them in jails, letting them into prisons, letting them actually take these malefactors right when they're most easily available and they get them out of the country. And it has to be emphasized over and over again that the left does not want this. The left wants criminals in America. They want them robbing Americans. They want them raping Americans. They want them killing Americans. And you can prove this. You can go to the Washington Post this morning. This is a headline today. Washington Post. Several states moved to ban local cooperation in immigration arrests. So Maryland is going to basically ban any of their local law enforcement agencies anywhere in the state from working with ICE by, for example, letting them into jails. They're trying to do this in New Mexico, in New York, in Hawaii, in Virginia. The only reason to do this is that you want foreign criminals in America.
- [46:36]
Charlie Kirk
And you, you want it for the census and the Electoral College, congressional seats and voters.
- [46:42]
Blake
But it would be so easy for them to say, okay, just take these criminals and they'll try to divert it that way. And, oh, and then they can complain if they go after someone who hasn't committed any crime besides breaking into this country illegally. They could do it. But instead, they are so fanatical, they want the worst criminals here. They would pay money to fly them into the.
- [47:01]
Charlie Kirk
Because they did. Yeah, they want Maryland dad to be sipping margaritas in Maryland. So, but that's not going to happen. We're going to get our mass deportations. Either cooperate, do it the easy way, or you do it the hard way. We'd much rather have it the easy way. Epstein, hour two. You're not going to want to miss it.
- [47:28]
Terrence Bates
Welcome back to this real America's Voice news break. I'm Terrence Bates. It has been a very busy day for the Trump administration when it comes to illegal immigration and border security. Just moments ago, we took you to, we took you to Arizona live, where DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was speaking about border security. More specifically about continuing to build the border wall along that stretch. She also used the opportunity to praise many of the Border Patrol and immigration ice, excuse me, agents who are working along that area. She, of course, said that they've been doing a very good job and pointed out some specific instances thereof. In the meantime, the Department of Homeland Security also cutting the number of federal agents deployed to Minneapolis by some 700. That's the word from border czar Tom Homan this morning as he is now overseeing the illegal immigration operation in the Twin Cities. Homan also saying that while his focus remains on catching and deporting violent criminal illegal aliens, anyone in the country illegally is a target.
- [48:27]
Tom Homan
I keep hearing it and hearing it and hearing it. We're not surrendering the president's mission on a mass deportation operation. If you're in the country legally, if we find you, we'll deport you. But this is about target enforcement operation and that's what we're going to be doing.
- [48:44]
Terrence Bates
While the border czar is working to shore up operations in Minneapolis, the vice president's focus today is on rare earth minerals.
- [48:52]
Charlie Kirk
So this morning the Trump administration is proposing a concrete mechanism to return the global critical minerals market to a healthier, more competitive state. A preferential trade zone for critical minerals protected from external disruptions through enforceable price floors. We will establish reference prices for critical minerals at each stage of production, pricing that reflects real world fair market value. And for members of the preferential zone, these reference prices will operate as a floor maintained through adjustable tariffs to uphold pricing integrity.
- [49:32]
Terrence Bates
And just into our newsroom moments ago, the man convicted of trying to assassinate President Trump while the commander in chief played golf in Florida will spend the rest of his life in prison. The 59 year old would be assassin was caught after a Secret Service agent noticed him lurking in some bushes along the golf course. He was found guilty on all charges against him back in September and unsuccessfully tried to sell stab himself after the verdict was returned. As for today's sentencing, prosecutors asked for life in prison without parole. The defense asked for a sentence of 27 years in prison since the failed assassin is set to turn 60 years old this year. In addition to life in prison, the guy also was slapped with a consecutive seven year sentence for one of his gun convictions. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement says that no operations are planned for Super Bowl 60 in San Francisco. Francisco. In the San Francisco area this weekend, the National Football League's chief security officer says there will, however, be federal law enforcement at and around the big game.
- [50:32]
Charlie Kirk
Our Department of Homeland Security, who's been our partner for more than 20 years now, is made up of more than 20 different departments will send a variety of different agencies. That does not include ice.
- [50:43]
Blake
There is not ICE deployed with us.
- [50:45]
Charlie Kirk
At this super bowl and I don't believe there has been in the last several. But most of the other departments, from.
- [50:49]
Blake
The Coast Guard to, you know, many.
- [50:52]
Charlie Kirk
Other agencies are here.
- [50:56]
Terrence Bates
Sunday's game is designated a SEER1 event, which is the second highest security assessment rating for a large scale event. Concern was raised about the possibility of ICE operations when it was announced that reggaeton artist Bad Bunny would be performing the super bowl halftime show. The performance likely will be totally, if not partially in Spanish. In the meantime, there's a billboard that's set up in San Francisco's Fisherman's Wharf district that really is all the buzz this morning. There you see it. As you can see, it appears to support ice, saying that defensive player of the year is ice. And in other headlines this morning, former President Bill Clinton and his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are set to testify before Congress related to the body's ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. The former first lady is scheduled to be deposed February 26th. Her husband will face the House Oversight Committee the very next day. The agreement for the former first couple to testify avoids a contempt of Congress vote which was scheduled to happen today. You probably remember the House Oversight Committee voted to hold the duo in contempt after they failed to show up for their previously scheduled deposition last month.
- [52:07]
Investigator
Month.
- [52:07]
Terrence Bates
Now the Clintons appear to be singing a new tune, though. That's a quick check of your headlines. I'm Terrence Bates.
- [52:32]
Charlie Kirk
All right, welcome back to the Charlie Kirk Show. Hour two is now underway and as promised, we are going to dive headlong into that Epstein. And we told you yesterday we want to do it right. And I had been hearing this gentleman's name mentioned in multiple different places as the guy that's been working on this for years and has interviewed all of the main players, maybe not all, but darn near all, including Jeffrey Epstein's brother and many of the alleged victims and so on and so forth. And so without further ado, we're gonna welcome him onto the show. His name's Jay Beecher. He's an investigative journalist. He's British, so he also has an accent. You can find him@substack substack.com we'll have those on the lowers the entire time. We're gonna blow the brakes. We'll, we'll go in and out, but we're gonna blow the brakes in the entire talk about. It's a lot to talk about. So welcome to the show, Jay. Honored to have you.
- [53:29]
Jay Beecher
Thanks for having me.
- [53:30]
Charlie Kirk
From the mother island there in the UK So just by way of introduction for our audience that doesn't know who you are and what you've been up to, how long have you been working on investigating the Jeffrey Epstein saga and maybe just some of the people that you've interviewed along the way.
- [53:50]
Jay Beecher
Yeah, sure. So I got into the story by reading just a generic article about one of the allegations made by Virginia Giuffre, one of the most vocal Epstein accusers. And I was just going to write a Bob Basic article and you know, sort of copying what she said and then I started to find some contradictions in there and it led me down a rabbit hole and six years, this is six years ago. So for the past six years I've been traveling the world really interviewing Jeffrey Epstein's brother, some of the Maxwell family, but also Professor Alan Dershowitz, Virginia Gifres inner circle and the accused and the accusers. So at the moment the media just go one side and have only really. They'll interview the accusers, they'll print the allegations verbatim. There's very minimal fact checking involved. They're just looking for sensational headlines. So I wanted to get both sides of the story so that people can make up their own minds and see the full facts.
- [54:48]
Charlie Kirk
Well, so, you know, we talked. I did a little bit of a pre interview call with you just because I wanted to stand where you were coming from on all of this. Your substack goes into great detail. I encourage people to check it out there. What brings us to this point now there was a transparency act passed. President Trump signed it despite some of his misgivings, which I feel a lot.
- [55:11]
Blake
Of his misgivings have played at, panned out because what he said when he was opposing it, he said there's going to be a lot of stuff in this that's going to hurt innocent people, kind of lead to a lot of wild allegations and certainly embarrassing true stuff for a lot of people. We've seen that about Bill Gates, we've seen that about Larry Summers, Elon Musk for example. Certainly some people have had real things embarrass them. But it also, at least you can correct me if I'm wrong, Jay. But I don't feel that it's, it's blown open. What some people were saying would be revealed like a massive blackmail ring or the like.
- [55:42]
Charlie Kirk
And let me put a pin on that because. Fine point. You, you said something, you said we don't need to sensationalize the lies because the truth is sensational enough. And I think that's a really good guiding principle for this whole conversation again, the whole hour about it.
- [55:58]
Jay Beecher
Yeah.
- [55:58]
Charlie Kirk
So explain how we got here and what some of the new evidence is. And then I want to go through name by name, allegation by allegation.
- [56:06]
Senator Tommy Tuberville
Yeah.
- [56:07]
Charlie Kirk
Sure.
- [56:07]
Jay Beecher
So, you know, it stems back to a man being arrested for having sex. Well, he didn't actually have sex, but having a sexual encounter with underage girls. So this took place because originally Jeffrey Epstein was a typical sort of Hugh Hefner type. He liked to be surrounded by attractive women and he was a creep. Let's not. There's no whitewashing of Jeffrey Epstein. He was an absolute creep and a pervert. But he did surround himself with girls between the ages of 18 and around about 25, some of them a bit older. So nothing illegal there. It wasn't until Virginia Giuffre came onto the scene. And Jeffrey at this time was well known for telling the girls, if you bring me more girls, I will give you extra money. Sort of like a finders fee. So we use this term recruitment, and it's quite sinister. It was more of sort of introductions. Sleazy as hell, obviously. But Virginia took it upon herself to. Whereas Jeffrey Epson didn't actually ask to get underage girls, Virginia went into her local community and got vulnerable schoolgirls who were around about 14, some of them were 16, 17, etc. And all of this is documented in the police reports. Virginia got them to lie about their ages. Another girl called Haley Robson, who was recruited by Virginia, got these girls to lie about their ages. So she would put them in makeup, she would put them in clothes that made them look more adult, and then she would drive them to Jeffrey Epstein. And once in the house, Jeffrey is actually documented as asking, are you over 18? And the girls admitted to the police that they had lied and said that they were over 18. So, long story short, one of them spilled the beans. Jeffrey Epstein was arrested because he had committed a felony, even though he didn't know their age, you know, and he took a lie detector test. The lie detector test proved that he was telling the truth, that he didn't know that they were under 18. But either way, he committed a crime. He went to prison. The story would have died there if it were not for the fact that Jeffrey Epstein was friends and associated with some of the most famous and richest people in the world, some of the most influential people, from presidents to prime ministers, Hollywood stars, directors, all sorts of people. And so the media wanted to latch onto this. Then at this, halfway through the time, the story actually did go quite quiet. Then you had the QAnon, you had Pizzagate shortly before that, talking about elite trafficking networks at play. Then you had the MeToo movement come up right in the middle of all of this. And so people were focused on the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Again, you had the original victims, and they are victims because they were underage. You know, these schoolgirls, although they lied about their ages, they still were vulnerable young schoolgirls. They started filing some lawsuits. There was about six different girls, maybe a few more. And then the lawyers fought. This is a great way to make some money. And then all these salacious stories came out. So you had Alan Dershowitz accused, falsely accused by Virginia Giuffre, and this is the lawyer of Donald Trump. You had Donald Trump falsely accused by a woman. And it turned out to have been orchestrated. It was a hoax that was orchestrated, actually by a producer of the Jerry Springer Show. But then Virginia had fed into this narrative, this Pizzagate conspiracy of a global trafficking network. She accused, said that she'd slept with foreign presidents and then later admitted that she'd never met any in her life. But that wasn't picked up by the media intentionally because that destroyed the narrative. And so it's dragged on and on and on. And then it became heavily politicized because it's become a great smear campaign. Anybody who was ever snapped with in a photograph of Jeffrey Epstein, anyone who had a cup of tea or a coffee with him or some of his friends who had business dealings with him, they were suddenly targeted via guilt by association. And then there was a big buildup. How can we turn this against Donald Trump?
- [60:18]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah, well, and that's.
- [60:19]
Jay Beecher
And Joe, I've been critical of him.
- [60:21]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah, of course. I mean, I don't consider you to be some fan of President Trump. And, you know, it's interesting because I do think that you mentioned The Pizzagate, the MeToo, QAnon, all of that stuff, and the confluence of those stories mixed with President Trump coming into power. And everybody understood that President Trump knew Jeffrey Epstein and associated with him. So we really have to sort of start there with the President Trump allegations, because that was long. The assumption is that we were going to find that President Trump had done some untoward things with underage women, you know, yes or no, and then expound on it. Did President. Has President Trump been. Is there anything in there that would be criminal, that would be salacious, even embarrassing?
- [61:12]
Jay Beecher
Absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing. And I think it's very telling. So the reason, only reason, I agree with Donald Trump on certain policies. I disagree with him on others. I think that's healthy with politicians. I'm not one of these, you know, believe them in every everything. But I have not found a single piece of evidence to suggest that Donald Trump has done anything wrong at all. He was bound to have been in the. He was in the same social circles as Jeffrey Epstein. We know that he had a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein at one time, and then he ended that relationship. And what's very telling is that from the very beginning, none of these vocal accusers and some of the genuine victims, absolutely none of them have accused him of doing anything wrong. In fact, Virginia Giuffre herself said that he was a gentleman, you know, that he didn't do anything. We just have to hop to the.
- [62:01]
Blake
Other side of a break. We'll continue on this in a second.
- [62:03]
Tom Homan
Sure.
- [62:03]
Charlie Kirk
One second.
- [62:14]
Blake
So, yeah, Jay, I will let you continue here in a sec. But it's very funny to me that I feel like that's a pattern we've had for over a decade at this point. Like, when you think of how scrutinized Donald Trump's entire existence has been. Every business relationship he's ever had, every political engagement he's ever had, and now this. It kind of is remarkable how clean he ends up coming out of everything. They couldn't get anything on his business other than, oh, he, like, he lied to get a loan that no one complained about other than the State of New York. I don't know. I'm digressing here. But, yeah, it's funny here, even on this, you know, he could have had something like Bill Gates, where it's not necessarily criminal, but it's, like, highly embarrassing. And they don't even have that, it seems. And you're, I believe you're, as you said, a man who's criticized the president a lot.
- [63:00]
Jay Beecher
Yeah. So I, with regards to Ukraine, I criticize him heavily, and I have criticized him quite heavily in the past. I've supported him in the past in certain things. I do it with all politicians. I'm not really a, you know, sort of a. I pick a team and stick with it no matter what. But on this 1 million percent, they are just weaponizing it to try and attack it. And I think they're devastated that they found no ammunition against him, and it sort of backfired. I really do.
- [63:27]
Charlie Kirk
So, Jay, I asked you a very pointed question, and I said, besides, when we were talking before, I said, besides Jeffrey Epstein, because I do believe Jeffrey Epstein is a creep. He's a sleaze. He was a crook and a fraudster, actually, and we can get into that. But who, who are the villains of this story? Because that is what's driving a lot of this. They want to see the list they want to see who was sleeping with underage girls. And you gave me a very surprising answer. What was that?
- [64:00]
Jay Beecher
Well, if people want to. So I do not victim shame or anything like that. Because what I'm trying to do is expose the genuine victims in all of this. And there are genuine victims and those victims are the people who were recruited by adults. They were adults at the time, Virginia Giuffre, Haley Robson and a couple of others. And yet that's the backwardsness in all of this. They have been projected as the heroes of the story when in fact they were the villains. And they have admitted that they went out of their way to target, groom and recruit underage girls, school girls, get them to lie about their ages and take them to a rich guy who they knew would then abuse them. And yet the media, because that does not fit the narrative, they refuse to cover that. They have just canonized these people and anybody who criticizes them is called a victim Shamer. I've interviewed Virginia Giuffre's ex partner and he's openly admitted that whilst he was over 18, he was hunting down schoolgirls to sell to Jeffrey Epstein.
- [65:07]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah, Jason, hold that thought. The police have that on record. That's amazing. We'll have it repeat that on the other side of this break. One second.
- [65:19]
Senator Tommy Tuberville
We are back.
- [65:20]
Charlie Kirk
We are doing a deep dive on all the new allegations that have come out from this new Epstein document. Drop here@the bitcoin.com studios. Really quick here. I want to tell you about our friends over@yrefi yrefy.com they are patriots. They love this country and they love you. Especially if you are finding yourself in a very troubling situation with private student loan debt that others will not touch. If you have defaulted or distressed private student loans, you need to check them out yrefi.com y com and give them a chance to help you. They can lower your monthly payment. They can give you a custom tailored monthly payment you can actually make. So if you're depressed, distressed, if you are even suicidal. I keep saying this, but it just blew me away that that's the state some people find themselves in when they are in debt like this. You don't have to be. They can help you, they want to help you. They'll even let you Skip payments every six months up to 12 times without penalty. They don't care what your credit score is. And they love this country. They love students. They want to help you get out from underneath this burden. So check them out. Why refi.com, yrefy.com. you're gonna want to do that for yourself. So check it out today. All right, More with Jay Beecher. Jay, I asked you who the villain was and you said that there are real victims. These underage girls that were recruited, they were dressed up in fancy clothes and makeup and they were told to lie about their age. Apparently. It sounds like Jeffrey Epstein asked if they were over 18. I'm not saying what Jeffrey Epstein was doing is okay, by the way. That's, that's gross, that, I just don't think that's even up for debate. Like, I don't. Jeffrey Epstein's a creep, a crook, a fraudster. And what I want to get up for debate, that's never been up.
- [66:54]
Blake
Everything else that, but, but how did.
- [66:56]
Charlie Kirk
This happen and who else was involved is really the central question. And you, you're telling me that Virginia Guthrie. Guthrie, I believe I'm saying her name right, is, is implicated, the police know it, that she was the one that was going out grooming these, these young women and she had an accomplice, I forget the name. And then that begs the question, what was Ghislaine Maxwell doing? Was she aware that these underage women were getting recruited?
- [67:26]
Jay Beecher
Well, that's the travesty in all of this is that the media just refused to report the truth because it doesn't fit the narrative. And it was Virginia Giuffre and a girl called Haydee Robson who Virginia had introduced to Jeffrey Epstein, who were going out of their way to find schoolgirls to make money. It was all financially motivated. They knew what they were doing. I, I, I have interviewed the mother of one of Virginia's victims. So Carolyn Andriano, sadly, was groomed by Virginia, given drugs, put on this life of prostitution, and eventually she was found dead in a hotel room, allegedly of a drug overdose. And so she destroyed Virginia, destroyed a lot of lives. But at the time, the MeToo mantra was believe all women. And the media were very adamant that they didn't want to deviate from that whatsoever. So Virginia's story was newsworthy, it was brilliant for journalists, because here she is saying that she'd slept with foreign presidents, that she'd slept with a prince of England, and just making all of these wild, headline grabbing, sensational claims that they didn't want to fact check it, they didn't want to fact check any of it. So if you, if you want to look at the villains in this story, it is Virginia, it's Haley Robson and a couple of others. So if I and Virginia's ex partner who I interviewed, and he quite casually just talks about how he went out of his way to find school girls and, and girls to recruit because he thought, well, that's an extra $200 and there's no shame there. The police know about it. He's admitted it on record to me and also in his affidavits, you know, his depositions, and yet he's never been prosecuted. Virginia has been been acknowledged with foolproof and has admitted that she recruited schoolgirls whilst she herself was an adult, but they refused to prosecute her. The police wanted to prosecute Haley Robson, but then it went higher up and they decided to drop it and only go after Epstein. And now Epstein did take a lie detector test. The police were quite annoyed because the result came back that he was telling the truth, that he didn't know that they were underage. Fast forward 10 years or so and suddenly you've got all these lawsuits coming in. You've got journalists who want to write stories because it's making them a lot of money and you've got lawyers who want these articles and headlines out there because it's making them a lot of money. They've made over 100 million so far. Just the lawyers alone. Because what they were doing, the lawyers, and this is well documented, they would get an accusation, they would approach the person who was accused and then they would try to say, if you don't want this going into the press, don't want to be smeared, pay up. And that's well documented. There have even, there are emails in the Epstein files of the lawyers discussing this and they've even talked about how they can first represent the accusers and then represent the accused and make sure that they keep these stories out of the headlines. I've listened to a secret recording taken by Alan Dershowitz where David Boies, who represented Virginia, admitted to him that he knew that Virginia was wrong in his words, wrong, completely wrong to accuse him. But he said, if you pay up, find some, in his words, Jewish lawyers, some rabbis. Those were his words. Pay it, pay up and this will go away. Now that's blackmail, it's extortion. And they would use the press, weaponize the press with Prince Andrew. That catapulted the story back into the headline news across the world. Because here you had, I want to come in there.
- [71:12]
Blake
You just mentioned David Boyce. That's not going to be a name most people are familiar with, but that is a superstar lawyer. He's been invol in among other things, he represented Theranos, which was that blood analysis company that was a huge scam. He's represented Harvey Weinstein. So he's certainly not deeply motivated, I would say, by, you know, protecting victims necessarily. He can play both sides of that. He represented Al Gore in Bush v. Gore. Like, this is a celebrity guy who's certainly been involved in high profile. And frankly, he's worked for some sinister actors, as we know, with Theranos.
- [71:46]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah.
- [71:47]
Blake
And so it would be entirely believable for him to be a sinister actor in this case as well.
- [71:52]
Jay Beecher
And in the Ferrinos case, he was found him and his team to have intimidated the whistleblowers. He. In this instance, what his MO Seems to have been is to. So let's take the Prince Andrew case, the allegations, as an example. He knows that they're not true. Virginia had originally claimed that she didn't sleep with Prince Andrew at all. Then she claimed that she had sex with Prince Andrew in New Mexico. She wrote three pages going into Laura details saying they went horseback riding together, had sex in the bathroom with champagne. Then, under oath, she admitted she had never happened. She'd never been to New Mexico. Prince Andrew. Then she changed it to that she'd had an orgy with Prince Andrew on the island. But then it was shown to her that she'd already written about this orgy, and it was actually, she claimed, with Jean Luc Brunel, not with Prince Andrew. But they knew this, the lawyers, and yet they don't want to drop that. The journalists want to keep it going because they're making money from. From producing clickbait, and the lawyers want to get money from it. Now, Prince Andrew, when it comes to him as well, what David Boyes would do is, and he said this during an interview with Piers Morgan, if he doesn't settle out of court, if he doesn't pay up, I will depose Meghan Markle, I'll depose his daughters, I'll depose all of his family, knowing that that can't happen because the royal family wouldn't allow it to happen. The judge at the same time refused to allow him to admit, admits submit certain evidence from proving that Virginia had made false allegations against him. And the lawyers have been working with politicians even now to get all of this together.
- [73:26]
Charlie Kirk
Jay, we got to take another quick break here, but we're going to keep going after the break. More Jay Beecher crazy stuff here. We'll be right back. Jay, we've got so much to get to here. I want to make sure we're moving quickly, so I have a thousand questions for you. Did. And we've got this. I didn't. We've got boys with Guthrey here, a picture that we could throw up here, which. So just to kind of add a visual element to this, just so everybody can see this. Did. Do you believe that Virginia committed suicide? I know her dad has said that he doesn't think that that was the case.
- [74:14]
Jay Beecher
You just never know what to believe anymore, if I'm honest. So you've got. She. I think she likely did. The reason that I believe that is because her web of lies was so. She stacked a lie upon a lie upon a lie, and I think it was slowly beginning to collapse because she was about to be deposed for the very first time. She was going to have her very first court appearance because she was being sued by Rena Rowe, who I've. I've interviewed quite a lot. And because she. She'd made a false statement against Rena. And so where is she? If you look into her past history, she's always settled out of court. So with Alan Dershowitz, she settled out of court, not financially, but she admitted that she was mistaken in accusing him. No, she wasn't mistaken. She lied. But with Rena, she was trying and trying to prevent herself from being dragged into court. And the judge two weeks before she committed suicide had ruled that, no, whatever happens, you must come into court and testify. Now, while she's in the courtroom, the defense lawyers, Serena Rose, lawyers, sorry. Would have grilled her. And I know this for a fact because I helped them with certain information they were using. There's a photograph of Rena Road leaving the courtroom with a 200 page report that I did, just compiling all of Virginia's lies with the evidence. And so what they were preparing to do was to use that as an opportunity to finally, under oath, force Virginia to admit the truth. And she would have been shown with this evidence and she would have been confronted with it, and now it would have been covered by the newspapers. You also, at the same time, had her marriage breakdown. Her kids were taken away from her, which is very rare. You know, you don't often see children being taken away from the mother and the mother losing custody. So her life was sort of caving in.
- [76:10]
Blake
Yeah, it does seem that's a. I think, a strong narrative, but so bigger picture, I think an issue I want us to talk about. When people do push the idea that there's not as much here as people thought, it's kind of a more mundane Guy who had relations with underage girls, got caught and then he also knew a lot of people. But there's not a bigger conspiracy or bigger behind the scenes thing. One thing people fixate on a lot is just Jeffrey Epstein's wealth. Even the vice president the other day was saying it should be investigated how he became so wealthy, because that seems very mysterious to people and that it must have some sort of dark explanation. Do you have an explanation for that that would be satisfactory?
- [76:57]
Jay Beecher
Yeah.
- [76:57]
Blake
How did Jeffrey Epstein become this super rich and connected person like that?
- [77:03]
Jay Beecher
Yeah, because I had the exact same thoughts. How the hell did a mathematician, like just a low level maths teacher without any degree, become so wealthy? It was actually through fraud. A lot of it was through fraud. He was arrested in the, I think it was the late 80s, very early 90s. He was involved in a. He'd left Bear Stearns, so whilst he was a teacher, he'd been poached by one of his students father who, who was high up in Bear Stearns and saw that he was very good with numbers, got him on board. He made quite a lot of money there. But then he went and left and made his own company with a partner. And now the both of them were arrested because they said it was a pyramid scheme and they were engaged in fraudulent transactions. And Jeffrey Epstein made a hell of a lot of money, millions from that. His partner was sent to prison and Jeffrey Epstein, for whatever reason, managed to get out of it. They didn't have enough evidence. Now his partner squealed like a pig and said, Jeffrey was just as guilty as I am. You know, he was just as, as guilty as this, but he got away with it. Then he got as a client for his next company, Leslie Wexner. And Leslie gave him the keys to the kingdom because he was helping people to avoid paying taxes. And he did that by setting up offshore, offshore companies and shell companies in the U.S. virgin Islands. And so Leslie Wexner saw, wow, this guy is good. He's running my companies. Well, he's saving me a hell of a lot of money. I'm going to sign him power of attorney. And he did that. But then later on, it turned out that Epstein had stolen tens of millions of dollars from Leslie Wexner. Enough, actually, just, just about 25%. A quarter of the money that he stole from Wexner was enough for him to buy his island. And with, wow, with more money that he'd stolen, he bought his place in France, his ranch, and he'd already got the house in New York from Leslie Wexner, and then also Leslie Wexner gave him sort of this era or of credibility. You know, he's representing Wexner. He could do me. So, J.
- [79:05]
Charlie Kirk
These darn breaks. We're gonna hold that thought. We'll be back on the other side. One second. Relentless and spirit. You're listening to the Charlie Kirk Show. All right, welcome back, everybody. So you're basically laying out a case, Jay, that he was good at one thing financially, and that was shielding people from tax liabilities. He was a tax evader, essentially.
- [79:37]
Jay Beecher
Yeah, not even two things.
- [79:39]
Blake
A tax evader and also kind of a confidence game, man. Like, he just. He wormed his way in with Wexner and maybe did valid work for the first couple years. And then after that, it just seems he was soaking him. You mentioned he got that place from him. He basically got it for, what, a dollar? He took a free $20 million home in New York off of him.
- [80:00]
Jay Beecher
Yeah, exactly. You know, he was rewarded. He was seen as this great genius, sort of some asset. I think he exaggerated himself to some extent. He'd lied on his CV to get to Bear Stearns, but regardless, he knew how to get rich people to pay less taxes. And that was making those shell companies in the U.S. virgin Islands his. His island people think that he purchased this to. To have secrecy and to, you know, run some sort of strange operation. Well, no, it was originally just for the fact that if you're in the U.S. virgin Islands, you get certain tax exemptions. You pay so much less tax than you would in the US So he set up all of these companies, and then he was approached by Noam Chomsky, by Woody Allen. He helped Woody Allen. He helped Leon Black. He had all of these different people who he would help pay less taxes. They would filter their money into the US Virgin Islands, into his shell companies, and then obviously, they avoided paying millions and millions of tax. So they're going to like him. Then he built up all of these connections through. Through that and through political donations. His political donations were not really because he believed in the politics that he was supporting. It was because he coveted, you know, famous names and famous faces, because that gave him more credibility, that gave him more access.
- [81:25]
Charlie Kirk
But.
- [81:26]
Jay Beecher
And having that access and that ring of circles attracts more people to him, Jay, I got.
- [81:30]
Charlie Kirk
So let me just challenge the premise here, though. I mean, is there any indication that he was a Mossad agent, that he was working with CIA? Because, you know, you say he didn't get arrested, but his partner did. Okay. Was somebody protecting him? Was you know, then he's connected with Ehud Barack. Later on, you know, you just. You sort of start wondering, like, why is this Charmed man so charmed? And does he have a handler? Does he have people that are greasing.
- [81:59]
Blake
Someone looking out for him? That's how he gets out of things.
- [82:03]
Charlie Kirk
You know, Leslie Wexner is a. Obviously a Jewish American. Was there. Was there a connection there that he was, you know, was he blackmailed? Did he blackmail Wexner? What. What is. Is there any indication? Because this. Some. Sometimes it feels a little too convenient.
- [82:18]
Jay Beecher
I know what you mean. No, I know what you mean. It's sort of like this is the luckiest guy in the world, right? You know, gone from being a humble math teacher. But there is no evidence that he was involved with Mossad, that he was in intelligence. His former girlfriend used to joke that, you know, he's so quiet and mysterious that he must be in the CIA. And then it sort of snowballed from there. But he did help when. So he doesn't need to be a member of an agent to influence world politics and influence, you know, some of the most influential people in the world, because we can see that in his email exchanges, he's being contacted by some of the most powerful leaders asking him for advice. But that tends to be more. If you read between the lines of the emails, it's more the fact of his connections. And they're always asking him, can you connect me with this person? So one of them, I think it was the Sultan of Wherever, asked him, how do I talk to Donald Trump? That's because he was associated with Donald Trump. Another one asks them for an introduction with Clinton, and they are talking about, in what we would deem intelligence, he was definitely the. The Russia angle needs more explanation and more investigation. And you will start to see that over the coming weeks, you know, isn't any involvement with Russia. But I. I have not found any genuine evidence to prove that he was a member of Mossad. And when Jeffrey Epstein was asked. So he was asked when. Let's. Let's think we talk about him escaping from sort of dodging one conviction early on for fraud. But he didn't. He didn't escape two major convictions. So the first one being, obviously when he was arrested in 2007 and for sleeping with an underage girl. And he was asked during that time by Professor Dershowitz, do you know, are you a member of any intelligence thing? Do you have anyone who can shut this thing down? And he didn't. He said, I Don't. I'm not like, you know, I don't have any of those connections. And they would have exploited that, they would have shut that down. And then years later, again, no one came to his defense, no one came to help him. If he had all of this information to blackmail people, he wasn't able to pull any strings.
- [84:38]
Charlie Kirk
But Jay, and just again, to keep pressing the point. So you spoke with Jeffrey Epstein's brother, you've interviewed him. He does not believe Jeffrey committed suicide. I guess the question would be what do you believe after speaking with Jeffrey Epstein's brother? And if he didn't commit suicide, then it's apparent that there would be forces that wanted him dead.
- [85:03]
Jay Beecher
Yeah. So when this is coming out, there are a hell of a lot of people who are associated with him. Now some of these, I, I've though I say some of these powerful people, you know, have done nothing wrong. They are still likely, some of them may have slept with some of the women because you've got to remember that 99 of the women that Jeffrey Epstein had were over the legal age. Some of them are registered escorts. They're fully documented as being escorts at the time. We don't know if he, if, if some of them had slept with them, we, we just don't know. There's no, no way of, of telling. But with regards to his death, going back to his death, I believe that there are some. It still needs a proper investigation and that is for my next book. I have been investigating the death and enough, a few things that I can't go into right now, to be honest. But there are too many unanswered questions, too many coincidences from that night, his final night. We forget that there was an original incident where Jeffrey Epstein was found. There was a commotion in his cell. Suddenly he wakes, suddenly they burst open the door, they find his cellmate.
- [86:12]
Charlie Kirk
That's right.
- [86:12]
Jay Beecher
So they, they, the cellmate who they put him in with, Nick claims he's innocent. Etc, I'm not going to touch on that right now. But why did they put him in with somebody who is supposed to have committed multiple murders and yet they chose him as a safe and non aggressive. That's the term they used. This is a non aggressive, safe cell mate. And on this incident, the guards, the, the prison officers burst into the cell. Jeffrey's snoring, the noose has been taken off of him and he's gone unconscious. The first thing he says when he wakes up is, Nick tried to kill me. His cellmate tried to kill him. Excuse me. Now he, he went back on that later on and said, oh, I'm confused. But they, you know, they, they think he might have been frightened into, into talking about that, but he had mentioned that before that people were going to harm him. So then you've got the CCTV cameras not working. At the same time, you've got the, the prison guards falling asleep on the watch. Conveniently, you've got one who allegedly claims that a prisoner, potentially Epstein, was shipped out shortly before. Now that needs exploring properly before it's completely debunked or proven. You never know. But Jeffrey Epstein is a man who had the means to organize an escape if he wanted to. But I don't believe that happened. I believe that he died. We just don't know if it was suicide or not. There are multiple reasons why we shouldn't close the book as case solved on the death of Jeffrey Epstein.
- [87:47]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah. I mean, if people wanted him dead, I mean, maybe it was just they were embarrassed. Maybe they did sleep with some of these underage girls that were recruited by Virginia. And I believe you said Haley, if I'm not.
- [87:58]
Jay Beecher
Yeah, Haley Robinson.
- [87:59]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah.
- [87:59]
Jay Beecher
Yeah.
- [88:00]
Charlie Kirk
So, okay, question. So there's a lot of names that were mentioned.
- [88:02]
Blake
Sorry, we might have the same question, which is just there has been millions of documents that have come out there. There is new stuff coming out. Whatever it is, have we learned anything from it? And is anyone. Is there anyone who actually might be criminally implicated, even if it's just on the level of what Epstein himself was?
- [88:20]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah.
- [88:21]
Jay Beecher
No. You've got sort of things that you could highlight as fraud, potentially fraudulent, that have been raised in the documents. But I think the people who. So let's look at why these were released. And again, it goes for political and finances, political and financially motivated. You had the lawyers who need this to be released because they have, they still have ongoing lawsuits. They've got them against institutions like banks. The last one paid out over $100 million and they get up to 40% of the lawyers. So it's good for them to keep this story alive and to keep these bankers and targets trembling. And then of course, you have the House Democrats, and I'm sorry, but they do not give a damn about justice or victims or they only care about going after Donald Trump. And yet nothing has been found in them. That's why they've been pushing for it. The lawyers, if you look into it, the David Boyes etc have admitted that they've been working with, with the House Democrats pro bono and they've been helping orchestrate this entire smear campaign. And yet what has been revealed is really disappointing for them because there isn't anything. There are, don't get me wrong, there are some fascinating things in there, some really interesting scandals and, and things that arise and connections that we didn't know about, but none of them are illegal. What we get, what you're seeing is guilt by association. They're looking for photographs of and it's the way that they portray them. So they get the media to put out the headline, a victim of Jeffrey Epstein was in the presence of Donald Trump. But then they admit intentionally, they redact the name of the victim, and yet we know the victim was Virginia Giuffre and that Virginia Giuffre had said, well, no, I met Donald Trump, he was a gentleman, he did nothing wrong. So they're weaponizing the Epstein files. They want to use it to keep the story alive, to confuse the hell out of the public and to make money. And that is what most of this is about, making money. And from the politician side, it's about using this to keep the heat and the pressure on Donald Trump. And yet they are really disappointed because they've not been able to find anything explosive and they've definitely not been able to find anything damaging against the president whatsoever.
- [90:39]
Charlie Kirk
So I want to go through rapid fire, name by name, that have been implicated in this recent drop. And so we've got to keep our answers tight here because we're running low on time here and there's so much to go through. But we've got one one minute left in this segment. But just touch on the Pizzagate thing. They mentioned pizza. They mentioned. So, so obviously this thing makes us.
- [90:58]
Blake
Think back to all the steak mentions.
- [91:01]
Charlie Kirk
A lot of people say, is there anything there that you can see?
- [91:04]
Jay Beecher
People like pizza. People. People like pizza. People like steak. We've got. I worked in politics before. Where do you go for a campaign meeting? You go to a pizza house, you all meet. It's the go to thing. The problem is when you take thousands, tens and tens of thousands of emails and only pick out the emails that say pizza. I, I bet if we looked through your emails or my emails, we would find references to pizza. We might find some to stake. And when they're put out there without any context, then you can spin this whole conspiracy theory and all the videos.
- [91:38]
Charlie Kirk
So you've looked at the emails in context?
- [91:41]
Jay Beecher
Yeah.
- [91:41]
Charlie Kirk
You're saying you've looked at them 100.
- [91:44]
Jay Beecher
And many of these emails, we've got to remember about 90 of what we're what we're seeing in the Epstein file so far is already out there. So I have seen them, I've seen the context. There is nothing sinister. I just checked what they're talking about.
- [91:56]
Blake
94 emails about pizza in my Gmail.
- [92:02]
Jay Beecher
I keep that quiet, you're gonna end up on a list.
- [92:04]
Charlie Kirk
We'll be right back. All right, we're here with Jay Beecher. Been covering Epstein for six years. Interviewed a lot of people, including Jeffrey Epstein's brother, Virginia Guthrie's inner circle. Jay, we see references to Goyim Goy. Is there any indication. I mean, obviously you think Mossad, you think, you think Israeli connections, Ehud Baragi, any of that stuff. Obviously, Jeffrey Epstein's not Jewish.
- [92:38]
Blake
That's not what I think.
- [92:40]
Charlie Kirk
Wow. Is there anything there? Because that's a term that would be offensive. Did he sort of see himself as us versus them? You know, anything there?
- [92:54]
Jay Beecher
Well, if you go back to the context and read it in there, he's actually joking when he mentions that. Go in. I can't remember who it is now. Who asks him a question. Are there Jewish people there that.
- [93:04]
Blake
No.
- [93:04]
Jay Beecher
She says something like, oh, that'll be a predominantly Jewish event. You know, it's like a dinner party or something. And he said, no, there'll be a lot of Goyam there. It's. But it's tongue in cheek. When you read his emails and particularly the emails that he's had in exchange with this person before, they joke and banter a lot. So it is just a tongue in cheek comment. You know, it's not. There's nothing, you know, sort of like they're the master race or, you know, there's no, there's nothing like that in there at all. Once again, it comes down to context and reading. When you learn. Spend years reading how Jeffrey Epstein talks. He did actually joke quite a lot. He did make a lot of sort of tongue.
- [93:42]
Charlie Kirk
Did he make any references of killing people or offing people? I've seen rumors of that. We have 20 seconds and I have another break here and we'll be.
- [93:50]
Jay Beecher
Yeah, so. So, you know, there were some. There's a couple of emails where he jokes about killing people and they're clearly evidence as jokes. But then there's some accused. There's an accuser who accused him in the documents of killing certain victims. And yet this accuser, because her name's redacted, the public don't know. I've already looked into her and she was debunked many, many years ago as a complete fantasist.
- [94:15]
Charlie Kirk
Gotta. Welcome back. Do we have it? All right, Jay Beacher. So I just asked you about references to Jeffrey Epstein killing people. You're saying the accuser was debunked as a. As a. As not a reliable person? Basically, yeah.
- [94:34]
Jay Beecher
Not just that. She was found to have had a history of serious mental health problems and of making false accusations. And those investigate. Those claims were investigated and found not to be credible. All right, so it's not like, you know, this, this is anything new.
- [94:52]
Charlie Kirk
Rapid fire here or. The last segment. We got seven minutes left. Peter Thiel. What did we learn?
- [94:59]
Jay Beecher
Not much about Peter Till. There's not much. I focused less on Peter Till at the moment. I've been focusing more on Prince Andrew and on Peter Mandelson and people, people like that. And of course, Elon Musk.
- [95:14]
Charlie Kirk
Elon Musk. What did we learn?
- [95:16]
Jay Beecher
Elon Musk. So I had known when I very first saw Elon put out, you know, this claim that he had photobombed Ghislaine Maxwell. Had photobombed him. I knew that to be a lie anyway, because I'd already interviewed some of Ghislaine Maxwell's siblings. And this will, he was. He was close friends with Ghislaine Maxwell, but they wanted to distance themselves. You know, Elon Musk and other people wanted to say, no idea. I wasn't very close with them at all. So. But there isn't anything damning against Elon Musk. Again, it's. It's guilt by association. Of course he knew Glenn Maxwell. He knew Jeff. You know, he knew Jeffrey Epstein. He was invited to the island but didn't go to the island. So there's absolutely nothing in the Epstein files that are. That is critical about Elon Musk.
- [96:00]
Charlie Kirk
So he basically just wanted to go to a party. And by the way, Elon Musk has been public. He wants to see Jeffrey Epstein. The accusers and the actual victims, these underage girls, wants to see justice for them. Obviously, Jeffrey Epstein's already dead, so there's only so much you could do. But if anybody else was involved. So Prince Andrew. You mentioned Prince Andrew.
- [96:21]
Jay Beecher
Yeah.
- [96:21]
Charlie Kirk
What. What do we. What did we learn and are learning about Prince Andrew?
- [96:26]
Jay Beecher
So a lot of what you're seeing now that you know these headlines are saying this new revelation has been found against Prince Andrew in the Epstein files. It's a lie. There are allegations that have been public for many, many years and available people just haven't looked for them. Like I say, going back to it with Prince Andrew, Virginia is the only person who has accused him. He was originally. She originally claimed she didn't have sex with him at all. Then she claimed that she had sex with him in New Mexico. Then she claimed a few other things and admitted that it was a complete lie. So I think that whilst he has made some, you know, made some mistakes in the past and has not helped himself with regards to this, he is innocent. And he was just cheating though, right?
- [97:11]
Charlie Kirk
I mean, he was going. He was, he was essentially going outside of his marriage. We know that much. Correct.
- [97:17]
Jay Beecher
Well, you've got to remember he was divorced by the. Long, long before he ever supposedly met Virginia Giuffre. He was already divorced. He lives still with his wife Fergie, but he was here. We have. So the latest revelation that the headlines are going mad about is that a. A new woman has accused Prince Andrew. She said that when she was about 24, she met Prince Andrew, she slept with Prince Andrew, that this following morning they woke up, had breakfast together and he gave her a tour of Buckingham palace. And then she said goodbye and left. Now that's seen as a big scandal. But he. Here we have a single divorcee supposedly sleeping, if it's true, with an adult woman of her own free will. And suddenly you've got the lawyer saying, you know, he must pay up more money to help her get over her trauma. I don't know what trauma. I think he should be invoicing her. You know, I had to pay for a tour of Buckingham Palace.
- [98:13]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah, fair enough. Bill Gates.
- [98:16]
Jay Beecher
Bill Gates is the. Obviously the damning email about him can supposedly getting an STI. Now, I don't know if that's true. Nobody knows except from Jeffrey Epstein who's dead and Bill Gates who is alive. But he isn't going to go on any shows too soon, so it could be true. I, I don't know about Bill Gates, but it's very damaging for his reputation. Not because he was associated with Jeffrey Epstein, but that. I think that that one claim about him in the email from Jeffrey is. Is gonna stick with him and smear him for a long time.
- [98:51]
Charlie Kirk
So there is something you told me about that I actually found surprising and I think it gets lost in all the noise here. You know, my assumption was that Jeffrey Epstein was sleeping with all of these women. This is gonna be a little graphic. So if you have young kids in the room with you right now, please, earmuffs, Earmuff. Or take them away. Do your best to not be so graphic. But. But that's not the case, apparently. Can you explain he had some deformities.
- [99:20]
Jay Beecher
Do your best. So Jeffrey Epstein has admitted this himself. Ghislaine Maxwell has testified to this. And 99 of the victims have all corroborated each other when they say this. And yeah, apologies for being 18 plus here, but he was proven to have erectile dysfunction. He couldn't get up, basically. He was taking medication for that. It wasn't working. He was taking testosterone for that. He was very frustrated man. The victims have all stated that he had a deformity as well, that he wasn't exactly the biggest of chaps, let's just put it that way, and that he would not have sexual intercourse with them. If you read the lawsuits themselves and read the testimonies, you'll see that 99 of the time he did not have sexual like full sex with these people. He was a person who would get. That's why the massage table was there. He would be massaged and whilst the massage was happening, he would use a toy on one of the girls and he would masturbate. That, that's the clean. But that's the cleanest I can put it, Andrew.
- [100:25]
Investigator
I'm afraid.
- [100:25]
Charlie Kirk
Yeah, but this is what would happen. I think people have it in their mind that it's. Yeah, there were these girls around, people would want to party with Jeffrey Epstein and you know, they might have done other things but, but him particularly, I, that was a revelation to me because I just was assuming.
- [100:43]
Blake
It's interesting how the same thing has come into play with the Harvey Weinstein case that he also apparently had deformities down there that hinder a lot of the.
- [100:52]
Jay Beecher
Yeah, we were talking about this earlier. There is a lot of psychology that's been into this and some of the biggest people who have committed sexual assault or prolific in committing sexual assault, a very high portion of them have found to have had erectile dysfunction or some sort of deformity and it internalizes their sexual frustration and then they lash out on or try and do it other ways or they. They're so sexually charged. And Jeffrey Epstein was the most sex obsessed person I think I've ever read about and looked into what. And yeah, yeah, that's not talked about, but it wasn't sex. He was into bdsm. He was into, you know, think. But his main thing was self pleasure because he couldn't get anyone else to bring him to that point of satisfaction.
- [101:40]
Charlie Kirk
That's. I know it's graphic and I apologize to our viewers. I think it's important though to get the truth and the truth is it's some sort of mix between the lies and the headlines. And I think, you know, it's interesting, we kind of end where we started, that President Trump was probably proven right in a lot of it. I do not support the messaging necessarily. I think it was counterproductive. But President Trump knew this guy was just a creep that was leeching off a lot of people and a fraudster. And he was a kink, sexually charged, certainly, and has done a lot of bad things. But a lot of people are getting smeared by guilt by association in this story. And I think that's interesting. I'm going to finish up with you. Just a few more minutes. Got to say goodbye to real America's Voice, our great friends there. We'll see you tomorrow. A few more minutes with Jay Beecher. We'll be right back.
- [102:36]
Jay Beecher
This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.