Defending Charlie's Nominees and Charlie's Values

Summary

---

The Charlie Kirk Show

Episode: Defending Charlie’s Nominees and Charlie’s Values
Date: February 13, 2026
Host: Charlie Kirk (with co-hosts and guests including Sagar Enjeti)

---

Overview

This episode of The Charlie Kirk Show serves as a passionate defense of Charlie Kirk's nominees to the Trump administration, specifically Jeremy Carl, and the battle for maintaining the integrity of Kirk’s "America First" values. The hosts break down ongoing Senate hearings, respond to accusations against their preferred nominees, and discuss wider cultural fights—ranging from diversity, immigration, and woke politics to the dangers of marijuana legalization. The latter portion hosts journalist Sagar Enjeti in a deep-dive discussion on the Jeffrey Epstein case, exploring new evidence, intelligence connections, and media narratives.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Defending Jeremy Carl’s Senate Nomination

• [01:17–09:19]
  • Nominee: Jeremy Carl (Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations)
  • Themes: The backlash against Carl for calling out “anti-white discrimination,” accusations of antisemitism, and his alignment with mainstream conservative populist thought.
  • Host’s Stance: The show presents Carl as a principled, persecuted truth-teller, echoing Charlie Kirk's legacy.
  • Memorable Exchange: Discussion of Senate hearings, where Democratic Senators (Rosen, Shaheen, Booker) scrutinized Carl for his views and past statements.
  • Quote:

    “These are some of my favorite people. Give them a job in the administration. … He was the author of The Unprotected Class, which is one of those really strong calling out how anti-white racism has become this pervasive thing in America.”
    (C, 01:25)

  • Highlight: The panel’s outrage over Carl being labeled a “white supremacist” and “anti-Semite,” despite being Jewish, and their claim that “saying the truth” has now become taboo.
  • Senator John Curtis: Newly elected Republican from Utah opposes Carl’s nomination, drawing sharp criticism from the hosts.

2. Framing Demographic Change and “The Great Replacement”

• [09:19–17:43]
  • Clips Featured: Debate between Cory Booker and Jeremy Carl on the “Great Replacement Theory.”
  • Hosts Argue: Accuse progressives of open demographic engineering to secure long-term political power, with concrete references to statements about “the browning of America.”
  • Quote:

    “So much discourse in America is just the left pretending not to understand things. … They’ve been called on it a ton.”
    (C, 07:59 & 17:20)

  • Statistic Mentioned: Record number of Social Security numbers issued under the Biden administration, purportedly to “juice” elections via demographic change.

3. Resilience Against “Woke” Politics and the Conservative Movement

• [16:25–17:43]
  • Main Message: Woke politics may have endured a setback in 2024 but continues to hold strongholds in government and society. The need to build immunities and stand firm is emphasized.

4. Marijuana Legalization: A Conservative Counterattack (with Sagar Enjeti)

• [20:25–31:08]
  • Sagar Enjeti’s Arguments:
    • Highlights the dangers: widespread daily use, IQ and testosterone decline, dangers for pregnant women, increased impaired driving, and the rise of Big Weed.
    • Dismisses popular arguments about marijuana’s medical benefits; urges a cultural and normative shift akin to how society turned against Big Tobacco.
  • Quote:

    “Nothing inspires more hatred for me personally than talking about the ills of marijuana.”
    (D, 21:12)

  • Rebuttal to Libertarians:

    "When your freedom begins to have high levels of societal costs... we need very well-established norms and regulation... This is a crisis. It's a full-blown crisis."
    (D, 27:39 & 29:00)

  • Charlie’s Position: Previously highlighted the long-term societal destructiveness of legalizing weed, even when "super unpopular."
  • Memorable Host Commentary:

    “When marijuana is legalized, you invite corporate actors that are very, very good at making things addictive…”
    (A, 30:35)

5. The Jeffrey Epstein Files: Intelligence Connections, Conspiracies, and Media Narratives

• [32:24–47:31]
  • Hook: Responding to Wall Street Journal op-ed downplaying Epstein’s blackmail/intel connections.
  • Sagar’s Take:
    • Epstein was deeply enmeshed in international intelligence circles, and evidence abounds in correspondence.
    • Financial dealings (with Les Wexner, Leon Black) defy “tax advice” explanations; no legitimate tax consulting found in emails.
    • Epstein’s rise traced to possible Cold War intelligence work, laundering, and arms dealing for states and agencies.
  • Quote:

    “His usefulness to this very powerful network… enabled him to get away with some of his more salacious activities.”
    (D, 33:22)

  • Debate on Blackmail: Rather than a dossier or explicit “client list,” Epstein wielded influence more subtly, through insinuation, soft power, and elite entanglements.
  • Financial Scam Theory: Briefly entertained (“ultimate con artist”), but Sagar rebuts with concrete evidence of real arms brokering and international connections.
  • Epstein as a “Gun for Hire”:

    “Did he work for Mossad? Sometimes. Did he work for the CIA? Sometimes. Did he work for the Russians? Sometimes.”
    (B, 44:09)

  • Sex Trafficking vs. Prostitution: Explores the nuance of “consent” and the exploitative nature of Epstein’s operations.
  • Sagar’s Final Word:
    • Explicit statements that even adult sex work under Epstein was “deeply exploitative,” so distinctions between “basic prostitution” and trafficking are blurred.
    • Reminds listeners that Epstein did victimize minors and exploited women with manipulation and pressure.

    “Just because people are of age doesn't mean that they're not being exploited.”
    (D, 46:31)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Jeremy Carl’s Hearing:

  “I think saying the truth is somehow beyond the pale now...” – Host (B), [04:37]

• On Accusations of Antisemitism:

  “Jeremy Carl grew up as a Jew, which is hilarious…” – Host (B), [04:10]

• On Demographic Change:

  “They cannot win with the historical American population, so they have banked on bring[ing] in a new population.” – Host (C), [14:33]

• Sagar Enjeti’s Marijuana Takedown:

  “People who are alcoholics do not try to justify their alcohol use by saying that it's curing them. ... I think exactly the same thing of marijuana.” – Sagar (D), [21:26]

• On Epstein’s Intel Links:

  “There is no sophisticated financial engineering going on. … The only real thing that we can come away with [on] how he made his money is, is either blackmail and and other types of criminality.” – Sagar (D), [37:03]

• On the Need for Regulation:

  “This is a normative conversation … like, really what I’m talking about here is culture, perhaps more than anything, the same way that we have conquered smoking in the United States.” – Sagar (D), [27:39]

• Final Point on Epstein’s Exploitation:

  “Just because people are of age doesn’t mean that they’re not being exploited.” – Sagar (D), [46:31]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:17–09:19] Defending Jeremy Carl, Senate hearings, accusations of racism/antisemitism
• [09:19–17:43] Demographic change, Great Replacement Theory, left/progressive strategy
• [20:25–31:08] Marijuana legalization dangers, cultural impacts, Sagar’s evidence-based critique
• [32:24–47:31] Epstein files, intelligence connections, the nature of blackmail, sex trafficking, and elite complicity

---

Tone and Language

The tone of this episode is unapologetically combative, direct, and sarcastic—typical for The Charlie Kirk Show. The hosts adopt a defiant posture (“we will not forget, Mr. Curtis”), emphasize the “truth-telling” mission, and do not shy away from hot-button culture war issues. Sagar Enjeti’s style is measured and data-driven, yet equally passionate in critique.

---

For Listeners Who Haven’t Tuned In

This episode provides a clear window into the culture war priorities of post-2024 American right-wing activism:

• Fiercely loyal to "their own" in politics and administration
• Deeply skeptical of diversity politics and demographic change as Democratic strategy
• Synthetic critique of progressive “woke” politics and perceived censorship
• Hard-hitting, data-rich opposition to psychedelic and marijuana liberalization
• Unflinching dissection of elite scandals, intelligence agencies, and media whitewashes

The show is both an homage to Charlie Kirk’s legacy and an updated manifesto for his movement’s ongoing fights—on campus, in politics, and in the halls of power.

---

Transcript

[A]

My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro American student organization in the country, fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're gonna end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You gotta stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start a Turning Point USA College chapter. Go start a Turning Point USA High School chapter. Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade. Most important decision I ever made in my life. And I encourage you to do the same. Here I am, Lord.

[B]

Use me.

[A]

Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. The Charlie Kirk show is proudly sponsored by Preserve Gold, the the leading gold and silver experts and the only precious metals company I recommend to my family, friends and viewers.

[B]

All right. Welcome to the Charlie Kirk show. It's Friday, February 13th. It's an ominous sign, isn't it?

[C]

Yeah, there's like two of those a year.

[B]

Yeah, well, you know, listen, Friday the 13th, it's a thing. I want to start off today with the nomination of Jeremy Carl in the Senate.

[C]

Yes.

[B]

As the Assistant Secretary of State of State for International Organizations, also referred to as Assistant Secretary of State.

[C]

It's basically one of our guys who goes to the UN and if that sounds like an odd thing to focus on, it's not. Because one of our roles with this show, one of the roles we have with Turning Point USA is we want to perpetuate Charlie's legacy. And one of the most immediate legacies he has is the people he fought to put in the administration that he campaign for.

[B]

Get.

[C]

These are some of my favorite people. Give them a job in the administration. We've had Sarah Rogers on the show. She's one of the people he really wanted to superstar, by the way. Well, we're going to be having her on again soon. She's all sorts of excitement.

[B]

Can I just say, I was just. I literally just did an interview with Politico before the show started, talking about Nate Morris in Kentucky and about how Charlie's endorsement of Nate is still propelling him forward in that race. So it looms large. And yes, to your point, this is an important one here with Jeremy Carr. Yes.

[C]

So Jeremy's another one he wanted. He was a frequent guest in our show. He was the author of the Unprotected class which is one of those really strong calling out how anti white racism has become this pervasive thing in America.

[B]

5:30 year. If you want to show that not.

[C]

Allowed to talk about it. But he did and for that he's been facing persecution. We'll just say, yeah, persecution because he went before Senate panel and had these parasites trash him for doing this. So this is a clip from yesterday. Senator Chris Murphy. Let's play clip 550.

[B]

Mr. Carl, I think it's just heartbreaking that you have been nominated for this position and that you've reached a panel before the United States Senate. One of the things you have said is that anti white discrimination is the most pervasive and politically salient form of racism today. Certainly this is my belief. I'm not running away from that. I think that while of course all races in different contexts can be subject to really severe discrimination. That when we look at our legal structures white Americans are often very disfavored in overt ways.

[C]

Which is objectively true.

[B]

It's completely the stance of this show.

[C]

Yes. In California right now they're fighting to change their law to be explicit. Oh can we actually legally discriminated against white people? It's too hard for us to do it in the shadows. But in plenty of other states it is explicitly legal. And our federal government, they've been doing it for ages and they've been throwing temper tantrums at the Trump administration's attempts to roll it back. And he's highlighted that. And for that they put him in the docket and just try to humiliate him.

[B]

Well, they're calling him a white supremacist, which is. It's funny because he's. And they're saying he's.

[C]

And an anti Semite.

[B]

Yes. Anti Semitic. Well Jeremy Carl grew up as a Jew, which is hilarious. You could show these images. 560. 561. So this is Senator Rosen. The Jews love to see themselves as oppressed is what he said. 561A post feminist America is one of falling fertility, rapidly rising out of wedlock burst, religious collapse and an explosion of latchkey kids.

[C]

All true.

[B]

All true.

[C]

All 100% true.

[B]

And that's Shaheen. Senator Shaheen. I don't know what the heck the problem is. It's like they think saying the truth is somehow beyond the pale now. And what's funny is. And we. What's the clip with Booker? This is. This is a fun one actually. Let's start here. 562 I think this is Senator Rosen 562.

[C]

Mr. Carl is infamous for deleting thousands.

[D]

Of his past tweets.

[C]

But deleting tweets doesn't delete them. They recorded podcast interviews, public speeches, or editorials that he's done. As many of my colleagues have and will point out, Mr. Carl's vile anti Semitic comments are very real, whether or.

[D]

Not he tried to erase them or excuse them. Some may try to excuse Mr. Carl's remarks, claiming his words were taken out.

[C]

Of context, that he never said them, and that his own heritage protects him from criticism.

[D]

So let me be clear.

[C]

Identity does not excuse anti Semitism.

[D]

Identity does not excuse racism. Identity does not excuse hateful rhetoric, regardless.

[C]

Of who says them.

[D]

Words matter, as my colleagues have said.

[C]

And she goes on like that for about two minutes. And it's so disgusting to me because this is what they fixated on. They're going to say, this guy is an anti Semite, so we can't appoint him to do President Trump's work at the UN Where. Spoilers. One of the main things we do at the UN is we actually have to constantly fend off resolutions that they do to basically attack two groups. They love passing resolutions at the UN to attack Israel, and they love passing resolutions at the UN to attack, like, settler countries, which always include America. So they'll do these, you know, indigenous rights things, all of that. And he's made it very clear he's going to pursue that agenda. He obviously understands, as Charlie did, that a huge number of the attacks on Israel are ultimately attacks on Western civilization, attacks on white people, like, you know, through that coded lens. And they fixate on him because he said things which Charlie himself did, that are basically the constant fights over Israel often derail American politics and are not a good thing. That's what he said.

[B]

Yeah. No, Jeremy Carl is a completely mainstream America first populous conservative guy. There's nothing, there's nothing that stand out about Jeremy in the sort of ideological sense. The only thing standout about him is that he's going to be extremely effective in setting right a lot of the wrongs of the sort of, you know, transatlantic sort of liberal hegemony. Right. So here's one that I just love. This clip with Senator Cory Booker is just amazing. And we're gonna prove just how stupid Senator Cory Booker is on the other side is.525, what do you mean when you say that you believe in the great replacement theory, Senator, thank you for that question. This refers to the intentional demographic replacement of Europeans in Europe. It was invented by Renaud Camus, who was a French scholar. You think there's an active effort to replace Americans right now, Senator? I think the Democratic Party, through its immigration policies, has certainly shown signs of that. And I don't understand that. I don't understand that.

[C]

There's a great tweet that went viral and so good that like so much discourse in America is just the left pretending not to understand things. Because of course they understand it. They'll brag about this, they'll have their meetings and they'll say, okay, guys, here's the countdown until white people aren't, you know, politically. I mean, Jean Wu, you just had that thing, hey, guys, we're actually the majority in this area. We should just take over.

[B]

Like Wajahat Ali, you know, the mistake you made was letting us in in the first place. There is literally hours of footage from just the 2000s of progressives going on television bragging about the browning of America and how we're going to turn everything Democrat Party. This was the promise of the Obama years that the demographic shifts in America were going to deliver a permanent Democrat majority across the board. Because brown people vote Democrat. That was the whole point.

[C]

There have been left wing NGOs that have literally had a chart that's tracing out the white percentage of America in the future and they highlight the year it goes below 50%.

[B]

Yep.

[C]

And so that's what's going on. And I want to just make sure we hit this in this segment that Utah Senator John Curtis, a former Democrat, but somehow now got himself elected as a Republican, has said that for now, he's opposing Jeremy Carl's nomination.

[B]

After reviewing his record and participating in today's hearing, I'm not convinced that Jeremy Carl is the right person to represent our nation's best interests in international forums. And I find his anti Israel views and insensitive remarks about Jews unbecoming of the position for which he has been nominated. Curtis tells Deseret News. So we got rid of Romney and now we've got, you know, Tamer Romney here, John Curtis. So I'm gonna. We're gonna hold our, you know, most strident opposition to Mr. Curtis and hope he corrects course here.

[C]

Hey, everyone. We're excited to tell you about Charlie's favorite supplement. If you experience brain fog, low energy, frequent illnesses, or if you just wake up stiff and achy every day, you've got to try strong cell. Charlie took it every single day. He frequently talked about it on the show, and he even traveled around the country bringing it with him. For Charlie, strongcell helped keep his mind sharp and focused for all the debates he was engaged in. Strong Cell gives clean, natural energy without jitters, weird spikes or afternoon crashes. It makes you feel like a younger version of yourself. People would often ask Charlie, what is Strong Cell exactly?

[A]

Strong Cell uses a proprietary delivery of NADH to make sure it goes straight to your cells to help your mitochondria. And since there are cells in every area of your body, then healthier cells equals a healthier you.

[C]

Strong Cell is a nutritional supplement that leverages a remarkable enzyme called nadh. Think of it as the power source for every single cell in your body. With over 30 trillion cells working for you, imagine how great you could feel when they're all functioning at their very best. Unfortunately, as we age, our body's NADH levels naturally decline, leading to all kinds of ailments and health issues linked with poor cellular health. Unlike many supplements that simply mix ingredients and hope for the best, StrongCell has a proprietary delivery system designed to ensure that those ingredients effectively get into your bloodstream where they can truly make a difference. This is crucial as many supplements on the market are just pretty packaging with no real benefits. Here's the exciting part. You can give StrongCell a try completely risk free. Thanks to StrongCell's 90 day money back guarantee. You can experience this revolutionary product with no worries and no hassles. If it's not for you, no problem. They'll refund your money. With nearly 2 million units sold, it's no wonder that NADH has become a highly sought after remedy. Remember, what you put in your body matters and you truly get what you pay for. StrongCell doesn't cut corners. They use the finest ingredients and they adhere to the highest manufacturing standards. So if you're tired of feeling tired, battling brain fog, or just not feeling like yourself, check out StrongCell today. Visit StrongCell.com and use the code CHARLIE for 20% off your order. Charlie always recommended giving StrongCell six to eight weeks to experience its full benefits. So do yourself a favor, get StrongCell today and give it the time it needs to work its magic.

[A]

That's strongcell.com Charlie. And don't forget to use special discount code Charlie at checkout to get a special 20% off just for Kirk listeners. StrongCell.com Charlie check it out right now.

[B]

So we're going to show you just how dumb Cory Booker is. Spartacus I'm going to play these two clips back to back. We just played one in the first segment, but I want to play it again. And then I'm going to juxtapose it with one of the all time favorite clips of Charlie on this show. 525. And then 500, 563. What do you mean when you say that you believe in the great replacement theory? Senator, thank you for that question. This refers to the intentional demographic replacement of Europeans in Europe. It was invented by Renaud Camus, who was a French scholar. You think there's an active effort to quote, unquote, replacement Americans right now, Senator? I think the Democratic Party, through its immigration policies, has certainly shown signs of that. And I don't understand that. I don't understand. I don't understand that. 563. Here's the Castro brothers. Great throwback.

[D]

Texas is a very, very Republican state, but some people say the demographics are changing. And the demographics alone will make that it won't be so Republican next time around. In a couple of presidential cycles, you'll be on election night, you'll be announcing.

[C]

That we're calling the 38 electoral votes.

[D]

Of Texas for the Democratic nominee for president. It's changing. It's going to become a purple state and then a blue state because of the demographics, because of the population growth of folks from outside of Texas. Oh, no, I think that's right. But it's not going to happen on its own. The demographics are changing, but it's going to take a lot of work from Democrats to lay the infrastructure for change. So we're very busy working on that now.

[B]

Oh, okay. So the demographics are changing in Texas. That's how they plan to change Texas. Here's the truth. Democrats have not won the white vote in a national election. Yeah. And they're highly aware of this in generations. So what do you make of it?

[C]

They cannot win with the historical American population so that they have banked on bring in a new population.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

So what they did, they'll even write about, oh, the betrayal where they didn't do as well with a Hispanic vote in 2024. And like, oh, it's a betrayal, guys. The plan might have gone awry and they'll try to repeat it again. That's part of what the Biden operation was, is if people are assimilating too quickly to not being Democrats, we might have to really flood the zone. Let's let in 15 million people and amnesty them. That'll lock it in.

[B]

Well, and I'm gonna have Danny pull this. Social Security numbers. The Biden administration in 2024 gave out a Record number of Social Security numbers just to try and juice the election. I'm convinced. I mean, we're talking. If we get the graph here, I really want to find is stark the difference between basically every other year and then 2024. They surged it. If you don't think for a second that they're not banking on demographic change to change the political future of this country, you are a fool and you're not paying attention. And I. And I find this. That younger conservatives understand this completely. The older you get, the more you're operating under an old paradigm where you. I don't know if it's civil rights hangover. There you go. Look at 2024. That's how many Social Security cards that the numbers that the Biden administration rushed surged to get out. And candidly, in 2025, it's still too high. But it was probably a backlog, I'm told, from Biden pushing things through. So hopefully that number drops back down to where it should be. But that was intentional right there.

[C]

Like naturalizations, too. They were trying to rubber stamp as many new citizenships as soon as they could. This was covered in the New York Times and other publications.

[B]

No, this. This is a big thing. I think we wanted to highlight the Jeremy Carl instance because, you know, we do this with di. We do this with Trans. You know, we looked at 2024 as this great rebuke of the excesses of woke, the excesses of radical progressivism. And yet we see this with Mamdani. We see this in Seattle with their mayor, Brandon Johnson, in Chicago. What happened in Minneapolis. Woke is not dead. Woke took a beating in 2024. And it has these little pockets of power, these strongholds, and they're gonna regather their Constitution and they're gonna try and push out and expand again. And you just see this with the Democrats in the Senate about Jeremy Carl, a man, once again, extremely competent, extremely qualified, who holds mainstream conservative views when it comes to race, populism, national sovereignty, immigration, replacement immigration. These are not controversial at all for half of America. And they walk into that Senate chamber and they go completely hysterical, acting completely shocked about the fact that we think any of these things. This is not a surprise anymore. We know it's happening. You guys have been called on it a ton. And we have immunities. We built up immunities as a conservative movement. Most of us garbage.

[C]

Because apparently the senator from Utah is.

[B]

Listen, that's a whole other thing. Listen, the senator from Utah, Senator Curtis. Throw up his picture, would you? So people know, this guy's, he's new.

[C]

I believe he's the one who replaced Romney.

[B]

Replaced Romney. This guy has been. I mean, I think he's kind of flown under the radar a little bit mostly. He's kind of gone along, get along. You know, he goes along to get along mostly. And listen, if that's gonna be what your choice is in the Senate, fine, we'll live with it. But there has been so many troubling moments with this guy that he is a squish. He is a establishment guy. Here's your offer. Don't do this with Jeremy Carl. And we're gonna move on and we're gonna forget about you. We're not gonna forget, but we're gonna let this one go. But man, if you try and draw a line on Jeremy Carl, we will make loud noises. We will continue coming after you. We will not forget, Mr. Curtis, because this is obscene. And again, we'll end where we started. Charlie believed in Jeremy Carl. Charlie fought to get Jeremy Carl into this administration. And we will continue that mission without. Without flinching, Mr. Curtis. So don't try us.

[C]

The online world moves fast and it's moving even faster these days. That's why TikTok approaches teen safety with families in mind from the start. Because discovery and creativity are both wonderful things. But it's important to make sure that safety comes first as well. On TikTok, teenagers have over 50 built in protections right from when they join accounts routines all start private by default. They're not open to the entire world. And for those under 16, direct messages are turned off. Only their friends can comment on their videos. And that kind of approach matters because feeling confident and comfortable about these platforms your teenagers are on shouldn't mean digging through a bunch of menus and trying to set everything up yourself and worrying that you got it wrong. TikTok is taking a proactive approach. Their protections are built in from the moment those teenagers join so that safety and peace of mind for parents is there.

[B]

Right.

[C]

Right from the start. All of this is to say, when safety comes first, discovery and creativity can follow without fear. Learn more by going to TikTok.com GuardiansGuide that's TikTok.com GuardiansGuide so we have Sagar and Jetty. We've had them on a few times to talk about. We talked about property taxes. Definitely inspired a very strong reaction among our viewers.

[B]

Yeah, we still have hate mail coming.

[C]

Oh, still, people will still send that in, but no regrets. But he's also been a very vocal person. He was one of the ones, I would say over the last few years, one of the loudest voices against marijuana, which we also discussed with Alex Berenson yesterday, he was really one of the other ones beating the drum. He had a very viral tweet pointing out the sheer number of people who've gotten addicted to marijuana. And then he's really getting vindicated because now with the New York Times coming out and some others admitting actually the rush to legalizing it and subsidizing it.

[B]

So he gets to take a bow, put in everyone.

[C]

Big mistake. Sager, are you there? Yeah. Take a little victory lap here for a second.

[D]

Thank you very much, gentlemen. Look, it's not a victory lap because a victory lap for me is a tragedy for our country. We have millions, tens of millions, almost 5% of the US population, a significant part of our adult population which is using marijuana, high potency marijuana on a daily basis. This is lobotomizing a significant, significant portion of our population. It lowers iq, it lowers testosterone. It's dangerous for pregnant women. I mean, we could go down so many of the lists. The number one pushback that I get, and I will say, gentlemen, you may find this shocking. I have spoken about the most controversial issues of the time, ice, you know, BLM and everything. I have received hate mail many times, Daylight savings, property tax, as you said. Nothing inspires more hatred for me personally than talking about the ills of marijuana. And in particular, the one I hear the most is about so called medical benefits. I need to remind everyone that a massive study just came out not even three months ago, written up by the New York Times, by jama, major medical journals that shows that all of the claims, almost all the claims on medical marijuana are completely fake. And I think that what something's very insidious and dangerous about this drug is the worship of it by many of its users. People who are alcoholics do not try to justify their alcohol use by saying that it's curing them. It's a shameful activity. And I frankly, I think it should be like if you need to drink every single day to function like you have a, you have a real problem. And I think that exactly the same thing of marijuana, except its proponents will say that there's nothing wrong with that. Our cultural norms around marijuana are encouraging high potency indulgence by huge segments of our population. There is no proper regulation. And unfortunately, you know, a significant part of both bipartisan America are being seduced by what is now Big Weed. I mean, these people make Big Tobacco look like choir boys. With the way that they have been lobbying not only this administration, but others to get Americans as hooked on this drug as possible and to keep out responsible voices who are warning about its problems. Just like Alex Berenson did with Tell your children, which I highly recommend, if you are a parent, you need to buy that book, you need to read it, and you need to keep your kids away from this substance.

[C]

Now, Sagar, so we agree with you, but we get a lot of emails. We got several just yesterday.

[B]

A lot of hate from people, hate.

[C]

Mail, but also people. We had the ones who said I got cancer or I have cancer and I take it and I think it helps with it a great deal. Do you, do you think those stories are authentic or do you think they're confusing maybe other medical effects with marijuana?

[D]

Yeah, I mean, Blake, as we've said, you know, the anecdote data is not data and the actual medical review of these claims does not hold scrutiny. And by the way, you know, one of the biggest pushbacks I get is like, why don't you talk about alcohol? I don't drink alcohol. I believe Charlie stayed away from it as well. I used to. I, you know, we all talked about that previously and you know, I, I'll happily talk about some of the dangers of that. But again, alcoholics are not trying to justify their alcohol use. You know, one of the things I've also warned about, there was a more recent study, I believe he was out of the state of Ohio or Michigan. I need to go back and to check. But it did show that a significant portion of driver debts, whenever they checked their blood had high levels of THC such potent enough for them to cause impairment in driving. People who, you know, go after alcohol like to talk about correctly DWIs and impairment driving, but everybody seems to ignore that we have a significant enough cannabis crisis for people who are driving while high. Nobody, nobody is paying attention to these. So I would just say to that person the same way I talk to people whenever I talk about the dangers of SSRIs. It may have made you feel as if it worked in that case, but in a longitudinal study, we see that it does not hold even close to the same benefit, let's say, of things with not even near the amount of danger like exercise and, or diet. So these claims, while we can, you know, take individually when we study them in the long term, we see that on the whole they do not hold up as promised and look like not to get lewd. But just yesterday, you know, as a joke, I was tweeting about cannabis suppositories, which I did not know was a thing. And yeah, so that's, that's a thing. It's extremely high potent. And you know, the criticism I got is like you're making fun of, of cancer patients. And I went to the website which is selling these cannabis suppositories and what's the very first thing that it says? A discreet ways to use cannabis.

[B]

Right.

[D]

Like even the sellers are in on the joke. Like they use medical marijuana as a claim to try and give it some veneer of health, when in reality this is about addiction and it's a tragic story. You know, marijuana is not a costless drug. I highly recommend people, you know, read Alex Berenson's book about psychosis. Check out Andrew Huberman's work on the topic as well. It's ruining your sleep if you're, if you're a young man. In particular, if you want to have a family, its effect on testosterone, on your ability to have children. People are not telling you the truth. And then similarly with a lot of pregnant women, every pregnant woman in America knows you should stay away from alcohol, unfortunately, because of this medical worship culture around marijuana. They are using marijuana in some cases for pain relief or others because they believe the propaganda of costlessness and it is already causing problems for children in the womb. That, not to mention the explosion of something called cannabis hyperemesis syndrome, which you can all look up. Scromming is an effect where you're just like significantly vomiting people, you know, children, teenagers and others who are vaping this very high potency drug. Ask any ER doctor in your life, they will know exactly what I am talking about. This is a crisis. It's a full blown crisis.

[B]

Well, I think, yeah, I was gonna say that the two things that hit me, what you're talking about, Sager, is the driving while high. This is, I mean high school kids, this is a famous, famous thing for high school kids. They think it's like a joke. So I think you're absolutely right. We should make progress on passing laws that, you know, maybe we already have them, but like actually enforcing them. So that's one thing young men in the schizophrenia thing, you saw the Brett Cooper tweet that went viral. That's another because the THC is so much more potent now than it was, you know, back in the 60s and 70s. Here's the last pushback that we got as far as emails yesterday. And by the way, people feel free to email us freedomarliekirk.com and give us your thoughts. I know a lot of you disagree with this. There's a libertarian streak in the conservative movement, especially when it comes to marijuana. They say, hey, listen, these things are all legal. Cigarettes drinking marijuana should be considered the same. What is your pushback directly to that libertarian, like, just don't get off my lawn, government. Don't tell me what to do. Leave me alone.

[D]

I hear you. I hear you loud and clear. However, we accept as a society that total freedom would be anarchy. And so we have to have well established norms. And when your freedom begins to have high levels of societal costs and cause danger and medical crises and significantly ramp up, let's say, you know, violence in some cases. You know, by the way, guys, we haven't even talked about the mass shooter angle. The number of mass shooters who are cannabis addicts is unbelievable, even though it's a relatively small subset. So SSRI certainly should be discussed, but that's another angle through which we should. The point around it is that nobody is saying, at least me, I am not saying that you holding a dime bag should send you to jail. What I am saying is that we need very well established norms and regulation to keep these companies which are selling these products of extremely high potency, with no limits on advertising, no, you know, actual analysis of its claims, no safeguards to try and keep it away from children. And I encourage people to try and to think in that way. This is a normative conversation in the beginning, like, really what I'm talking about here is culture, perhaps more than anything, the same way that we have, you know, conquered smoking in the United States. Largely same with drinking. At some of the higher echelons of society, we've seen drinking come down significantly. We need to do the same thing with weed.

[C]

I'm just thinking about the tragedy of, like, because we had that peak where, oh, actually marijuana is great, and in fact, it has, it has health benefits. If anything, I was thinking when we started to legalize it, it wasn't even just, oh, it's legal now. We were getting. Democrats were having these bills to subsidize it so, like, former convicted drug dealers, like black Americans could open their own weed stores. So we could have as many weed stores as possible in low income neighborhoods. Like, and I'm just thinking we're gonna look back at this in 10 years, 15, 20. And that'll be the new argument they use to prove why America is racist. They'll say not only did they legalize weed, they subsidized putting weed into black neighborhoods. And it's gonna be so hard to explain. No, actually that is what liberals were doing as a do gooder thing.

[B]

You know, I'm thinking like Tyler Robinson and his. Like Lance Twigs. Yes.

[C]

The shooter in Tumblr Ridge the other.

[B]

Day apparently was taking a bunch of this. You think about the, the delivery mechanisms of modern weed with vaping versus you go back into your mind, like what the hippies were doing. It's like the hippies would get around a, you know, bong, and it would.

[C]

Be like they had like an actual plant they took off some mountain.

[B]

But it was like, it was like a almost. It was just. It took a lot more effort, right, to get around. You had to, you know, get it all ready. And now it's like, oh, you know, you're just sitting on the couch watching tv, vaping. And it's just the. And by the way, the dosage is so much higher. It's like the. It's so much easier to make it a chronic repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat kind of like usage thing. It becomes much more habitual.

[A]

But another component of all of this which cannot be lost is that when marijuana is legalized, you invite corporate actors that are very, very good at making things addictive. The operative question, the most important question, will more people using weed make America a stronger, better, happier, more joyful country 50 years from now or less? So some people say it will make it that way. I completely disagree. I think the data is totally different.

[C]

That was Charlie on the marijuana threat. We obviously want to highlight that because he was a big fighter. Even when it was super unpopular, he was always a warrior. He didn't care if he took a bunch of hate for it.

[B]

Hi, folks. Andrew Colvett here. I'd like to tell you about my friends over at why Refi. You've probably been hearing me talk about why Refi? For some time now. We are all in with these guys. If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call. Maybe you're behind on your payments. Maybe you're even in default. You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore. Yrefi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back. We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt. Many of them don't even know how much they owe. Yrefi can help. Just go to whyrefi.com that's the letter y then refi.com and remember y refi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to yrefi.com and tell them your friend Andrew sent you.

[C]

We want to pivot into another topic because Sager is very good on this one as well. The Epstein files, the infamous ones. But we wanted to have a specific hook. There was an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal the other day by Barton Swaim and he argues the Jeffrey Epstein files were supposed to uncover the financiers, sex trafficking and blackmail operations. They haven't for the excellent reason that there were no such operations. So we've had guests from both sides of the spectrum, Sagar, some arguing. Actually one argue the real villain in the story he says is Virginia Guthrey herself, that she was a fabulist and she kind of created the big conspiracy theories out of nothing and like recruited sleazy girls. You know, Epstein might be sleazy, he did like underage girls, but that was the limit of what his wrongdoing was. Now, I know you are have generally been a believer in, we'll call it the big tent Epstein theory, that there is a lot that is still hidden, a lot to be found. So what, what are you currently thinking with all the files that have been released?

[D]

I understand that argument. However, I often find that they're arguing against a strawman, as if that was the only claim, let's say in the Big ten community, say that if you were to widen your aperture, that the confirmation of the core claim, which was that Epstein was obviously involved in a highly powerful network that involved governments and intelligence agencies, that you really can't ignore all of the evidence that we now have, not only from the files but from the previous release that would happen before as lot of, as well as a lot of the information that was already in the open source environment. And so one of the things I find very frustrating is that yes, there became this kind of what I would call like a low IQ conspiracy of a client list where that would say blackmail tape and then so he would write exactly next to it what he blackmailed for. I'm sorry, I mean, I think it's a very unsophisticated understanding of how power influence and yes, in some cases blackmail works. But it also ignores, frankly the memo where Epstein memorialized to himself some very salacious claims that were made against Bill Gates. And guys, I can tell you, having had access to tens of thousands of Epstein's hacked emails that I read through, I would venture to say I Read through every single one. He was very often in the business of sending himself exactly these types of emails, memos and others to memorialize certain conversations, send them to lawyers, and keep tabs on others. Individuals now smoking guns largely do not exist. For people who are in law enforcement will understand what I am saying. You have to be able to connect the dots. And what we see is not only all of the compromising photos that have been released, let's say of Lord Mandelson, of Prince Andrew, many of these others rich and powerful people. But it really belies the, you know, what I would say, the ignoring by a lot of the people who don't want to see a bigger network here of Epstein's work with these intelligence agencies. And the reason why the intelligence agency question is central and the most important is that his usefulness to this very powerful network of governments, intelligence agencies all across the world, not just one single intelligence agency, is what enabled him to get away with some of his more salacious activities, activities that everybody else likes to focus on.

[B]

No, listen, I think the intelligence I tend to be, I lean more on your side here because his whole rise to power, his whole how rich he got, the Les Wexner connections, this revelation that Lex has now been listed in the files as a co conspirator. The question about when are we going to see indictments? We're told actually yesterday by Chip Roy that he asked Pam Bondi specifically if some of these other investigations are ongoing and can we expect some indictments? Apparently, yes, is the answer that they're working on, on the co conspirators. But I tend to think that he was connected to Intel. And I agree there's this, I think, a low IQ take on what that means. It's like, here's your $10 million now, you know, send these arm shipments over here, and then we're gonna like bury it over here. People think of it in very black and white terms. He was very good at insinuating, at reminding people of what he knew, that he was keeping tabs on everything. And it's a soft power. And you're right, it enabled him to get away with this really gross lifestyle over the years. That was a people kind of turned the other cheek to. So I tend to agree that I think he was connected internationally. I think he had a power play. But I do tend to think that the sex thing, which is what a lot of people hang their hat on, is probably less salacious than people want to believe, because Virginia Guthrey was the one that recruited a Lot of these young women, underage women, and they were taught to tell Jeffrey EPSTEIN, oh, I'm 18 and everything's fine, and put on makeup and dress a certain way.

[D]

There's no question that Virginia Giuffre had her own problems, okay? And I don't wanna totally besmirch the dead either. We shouldn't forget that she committed suicide and she really was driven towards. She had a torturous life. Okay? And we also saw a lot of images that showed that she did certainly have, you know, a lot of connections inside of Epstein's universe. But I want to come back to what you said, and then let's also do what investigators do, they rule out other possibilities. One of the reasons why rich people said they associated with Epstein was tax advice. Well, now we have access to millions of his emails. There's no tax advice in there. Zero. Leon Black, the head of the Apollo Group, who was worth $9 billion, said he paid him $150 million for tax advice. Can't find a single email of any tax advice. The only advice that I found is he found like a Business Insider article and sent it to one of his accountants. Sorry, that doesn't pass muster. Second, with Les Wexner, he was the greatest financial mind I've ever seen. As I said, I've read his unredacted emails which I gained access to. There is no sophisticated financial engineering going on. You can also read Jason Leopold over at Bloomberg News. He read through it. The only real thing that we can come away with how he made his money is, is either blackmail and and other types of criminality. For example, what is UK politics exploding over right now? Insider trading, over being given a heads up by Lord Mandelson about an upcoming bailout. Similarly trading information, let's say with Prince Andrew, who is the time, was the UK trade advisor. That is the actual glimpse into how he made his money. But remember, the intelligence connection is important because it goes to the beginning. This is a person with a fake Austrian passport at the height of the Cold War, long before he is a multi millionaire or even a billionaire. Vienna, by the way, was what, the capital of spies and the nexus of east and West. This is the person in a relationship with the Khashoggi family, with the Lease family, who are at the heart and center of Iran Contra. This is a person who is involved in $100 million Ponzi schemes, in some cases stealing some of the money from there, and an expert in money laundering, moving money across the globe, which is what enabled these arms deals. With Israel, with the Cote d', Ivoire, with Russia, with everything. That is his expertise.

[B]

Blake, are you beginning to. Are you more convinced? That was pretty compelling from Segar, all those connections, the early stuff.

[C]

So I think I've talked to you about this in other Venue saga, but I always wonder there's a person you might be familiar with. I don't want to name him right now, but I kind of just wonder if maybe the skeleton key of Epstein is he's just a scammer who's, like, almost a pathological liar. He's lying all of the time. And so it would make sense for him to, like, the answer to why he gets rich. The New York Times wrote about this a few months ago that it seems the secret to how he got rich is he may have just kind of scammed people or robbed people.

[B]

Well, he robbed less Wexer.

[D]

Yeah.

[C]

Like, Les Wexer basically says, oh, he embezzled money. Like, he impressed me. And then he just started stealing like crazy. And before you have the Internet, before you have as much financial sophistication as we have now, it was easier to get away with that. Reputation matters more. You might have more people who'd say, I got scammed. And I have to sort of just shrug and go with it because otherwise I'm too humiliated to keep my business going. And I wonder if that is sort of the answer. And that could go to the intel thing. What if it's less that he was super plugged in with intel and more that he would let everyone believe he was super plugged in with intel, and he. He would feed this narrative like, what if the answer is just Epstein was really charismatic, really good at tricking and leading people along, and really good at Robinville. Yeah. Ultimate con artist.

[D]

It would be possible if we didn't have evidence of him brokering Israeli military sales to Cote d'.

[C]

Ivoire.

[D]

That's another thing. Is not just Cote d' Ivoire to Mongolia making a security agreement between those two countries. He's at the nexus of an FSB agent who is a graduate. Sorry, an FSB graduate of the academy in Russia who becomes the head of a major economic development fund in St. Petersburg, who he then later emails for help in getting rid of a woman who. Who is blackmailing who Very rich people in New York City, including sending her his address, asking for help. I mean, I'm sorry. Like, this does not pass the muster. Sorry if I shouldn't curse, but, you know, it doesn't pass muster for this idea that he was a Scammer because we have too much concrete evidence of his actual dealings with all of these arms trafficking networks, including with other intelligence agencies. Another very important email I found in the files, this is a file where you see an email exchange between A. Barak, the former Prime Minister of Israel, and Epstein. Aoud is meeting with the Qatari investment fund right before Epstein says by the way, please remind them I don't work from Mossad. Right, with a smiley face that's there, A Barack says you or I smiley. And Epstein says both. And in these cases it's pretty clear that the Qataris thought he did work for Mossad. Now maybe like you guys said, this is all part of an illusion, but there is a bit of a joking nature between Ewud Barak and his relationship here with Epstein. Ayud Barak, by the way, was also the former head of the military intelligence. He helped. Epstein, by the way, funded millions of dollars into one of his defense technology startups, a Palantir esque spyware type system which we have long seen that we use private conduits, people like Epstein to fund some of these black acts, activities that happen outside of the normal official parameters of the CIA, by the way, you know, bringing it back to Iran Contra. Maybe some of the audience doesn't even know what I'm talking about. The reason why Iran Contra was so significant is that it was the CIA and the intelligence community that was doing what it had always done. Except now we're in a post church committee environment. So after the church committee with real oversight by the United States government and Congress, they can no longer just, you know, fund arms here, traffic some drugs there, send arms to over here. What they have to do is use these arms dealing sketchy conduits like Epstein, like Khashoggi, like we have Douglas Lee, so many others that were implicated in the scheme. You need these individuals. The CIA cannot just open up a bank account that says CIA down in Nicaragua. You need people who are highly sophisticated money launderers. Jeffrey Epstein worked at Bear Stearns under Ace Greenberg, remember with zero experience, after supposedly meeting him while he was teaching his son at the Dalton school in the 1970s, CEO of Bear Stearns hires him and he gets fired from Bear Stearns allegedly because you know, dealing in some of these sketchy activities. But it's not like he's cut out entirely. He goes and he opens his own investment management fund, except there's no evidence of any real investments or anything made in the 1980s. He declares that he will only manage the money of people worth over $1 billion, which is extraordinary. There were, like 11 people in the world who were worth $1 billion or so at that time. Nothing passes the smell test in every single one of these cases. And it all points to a very sophisticated, what I think is a money laundering operation that at times intersected with the intelligence community, the CIA. By the way, one of the important things from the files is Epstein FOIA ing the CIA for any mention of himself in the year 1999. So. And then again in the year 2011.

[B]

Well, so I think that. I think my. My conclusion here is, is approximately this, that when you are a business and you put out an rfp, right, For a request for proposal, and there's a couple of different people that could meet your needs, and then they send you back what they can do, and then you pick one. I think Epstein was just a gun for hire out there, that if you wanted to do something sketchy, maybe he could kind of facilitate it here, make it look kind of by the books or whatever. And that was about it. And he knew a lot of people, so he had a lot of connections. He was sort of a known commodity in this sort of seedy underworld. But he kept an air of being a legitimate financier, I think it was. So did he work for Mossad? Sometimes. Did he work for the CIA? Sometimes? Like, did he work for the Russians? Sometimes. I have one last question for you, Sager, and then we've got a Probably like one minute. So at this hearing with Pam Bondi, you had all these victims stand up behind. But then I find out, because I was looking at Michael Tracy's Twitter, they were all adults at the time when the, you know, sexual activities happened. They were getting money, some of them were getting cars, kickbacks, whatever, tuition. How is this different than just prostitution, which would be sort of consensual? I'm confused there, because victims, wouldn't. You think that they're underage or something? What's your take on that?

[D]

Well, Andrew, I would challenge you very hard on that. I thought we were here on a conservative show. I don't believe that there is any such thing really as consensual or sex work and not deeply exploitative as an industry.

[B]

I think it's incredibly, deeply exploitative. But again, it gets to this point of. I think what I'm pushing back against is this idea that there were, like. I think, because the narrative is that there's all these underage girls that got, you know, trapped and drugged and done.

[C]

To do this stuff. Sacrifice.

[B]

Yeah, like. And really it was basic prostitution is what it seems like. He would go and recruit.

[D]

No, it was basic prostitution in the cases that you're talking about. But remember, even in the original indictment in which he ends up where he's charged, that he does admit to a 17 year old and a 14 year old. 14 year old was also there. It's all in the documents. You can go, yeah, and read it for yourself.

[B]

That's.

[D]

But I just.

[B]

Yeah, no, no, no.

[D]

I really just pushed back hard against this idea because, like, flying women across the world to have sex with them is an express violation of the man act. And also, as don't get me wrong, conservatives, we have to stand up and be like, absolutely not. Like, we protect women who are being deeply exploited in these Eastern European countries, sold false bills of goods, who are saying they're going to some model being pressured on an island. Like you're saying in the 1990s or in the 2000s when there's no Internet or able to escape. So, you know, I. Look, I may be getting a bit prickly on this, but, you know, just because people are of age doesn't mean that they're not being exploited.

[B]

No, I don't.

[D]

That happens all across the country.

[B]

You're not, you're not getting prickly. No, I agree with that. What I'm pushing it back against is this. I think there's this. It's just a narrative around Epstein where it's just all of these. I think you just assume it's underage and they were all 14 and then you find out Virginia was recruiting them. Anyways, we gotta go. Sager, it's been wonderful having you, my friend. Thanks, Blake, for setting it up. Of course, we'll have you on.

[D]

Thanks, guys. Nice chatting with you.

[C]

For more on many of these stories and news you can Trust, go to charliekirk.com.