Did Derek Chauvin Get a Fair Trial?

Summary

The Charlie Kirk Show – "Did Derek Chauvin Get a Fair Trial?"
Date: April 21, 2021
Host: Charlie Kirk

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Charlie Kirk examines whether Derek Chauvin—the police officer charged with the death of George Floyd—received a fair trial. Kirk and his co-host focus on the media coverage, political interference, and broader cultural implications surrounding the trial. The episode was recorded before the verdict was announced but anticipates and critiques the factors likely to influence it, particularly the actions and statements of public figures and the activist media.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trial Fairness and Due Process

• Main Concern:
  The episode questions if Chauvin could receive a fair trial given the intense public pressure, political commentary, and threats of unrest.
• Charlie Kirk:
  Argues that the case is about more than Derek Chauvin—it’s a test of the constitutional framework, specifically the presumption of innocence, due process, and governance by facts not emotions.

  "It really is a question of whether or not we are going to continue to trust our constitutional framework and with it due process and presumption of innocence, seeking facts, not emotion, as a way to govern ourselves." (02:21)

2. Prosecution’s Arguments – Emotional vs. Factual Appeals

• The prosecution, notably Steve Schleicher, is criticized for making arguments that rely on the emotional impact of the video footage rather than focusing exclusively on facts, including Floyd’s toxicology reports and background.

• [03:45] Quote – Steve Schleicher:

  “He did what he did on purpose, and it killed George Floyd.”

• [04:50] Quote – Steve Schleicher:

  "This case is exactly what you thought when you saw it first, when you saw that video. It is exactly that. You can believe your eyes."

• Co-host Analysis:
  The hosts argue this approach sidesteps vital evidence surrounding Floyd's death and calls the logical framing “really poorly constructed.”

  "That's a really poorly constructed logical framing that he's guilty because you know what you felt. Because the video was so graphic." (05:34)

3. Political Interference and Maxine Waters

• Focuses heavily on Rep. Maxine Waters' comments encouraging protesters to “get more confrontational” if the desired verdict wasn’t reached, and how this could directly impact juror impartiality.

• [06:55] Quote – Maxine Waters:

  "We've got to get more active. We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."

• The judge, Peter Cahill, acknowledges that Waters' comments could provide Chauvin with grounds for appeal should he be convicted.

• [08:03] Judge Peter Cahill:

  "Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned."

• [08:26] Cahill on Politicians' Comments:

  "I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case... Their failure to do so, I think is abhorrent."

4. Media and Activist Narratives

• The show accuses mainstream media and activists of promoting a narrative equating George Floyd’s death to civil rights struggles, which Kirk argues is a misrepresentation.
• [12:34] Derek Johnson (NAACP):

  "This is our Selma moment."

• Charlie Kirk's Response:
  Argues this comparison is an insult to the historic civil rights movement and mischaracterizes the complexities surrounding Floyd’s death.

  "It's actually incredibly insulting to Martin Luther King Jr. to say that those two things are even remotely the same thing." (12:34)

5. Mob Justice and the Erosion of Constitutional Norms

• The chorus throughout the episode: elite and media figures, through incendiary rhetoric and intimidation (particularly referencing BLM protests and riots), are undermining the principle of reasoned, fair justice in favor of mob rule.

• [17:09] Alan Dershowitz:

  "This was an attempt to intimidate the jury. It's borrowed precisely from the Ku Klux Klan..."

• Kirk continues the analogy between critical race theory/wokeism and a quasi-religious faith that cannot tolerate alternative verdicts.

  "If you are able to come up with a verdict that says that George Floyd did not die because of the intentional preconceived motivation of Derek Chauvin, then the religion of Wokeism, all of a sudden becomes a lot less powerful in America." (19:45)

6. Pattern of Incendiary Rhetoric (Maxine Waters)

• Kirk highlights Waters’ past calls for confrontation, playing audio clips from 1992 and 2018 as a pattern of behavior.
• [22:02] Maxine Waters (2018):

  "And if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you dispatch on them and you tell them they're not welcome."

7. Activist Media, Hypocrisy, and Double Standards

• The program rails against what it sees as the left-wing media’s defense of Maxine Waters while condemning right-wing protests.

• [24:26] Activist Media Defense:

  "One little thing like this and they jump all over her... she’s one, one congresswoman."

• Kirk draws a double standard with the reaction to Trump’s rhetoric:

  "If a Republican or a Trump supporting activist said, you know, if we don't get what we want, go loot, riot, burn, the FBI would visit them. But she says that, and she gets applauded." (26:10)

8. The Power Dynamic Behind the Protests

• Kirk frames the continued activism, protest, and media narrative as a "business strategy" by those benefiting from the sustained outrage (referencing book sales, interviews, non-profit funding, etc.).
• Kirk’s View:
  The result is potential unrest regardless of the verdict, because anything less than a murder conviction will be labeled as injustice, preparing the ground for further unrest and undermining of the legal process.

9. Wider Implications for Society

• Kirk and guests connect the Chauvin trial to themes of authoritarianism, referencing 1984 and Brave New World as analogies for the current suppressive environment.
• The finale is a warning: allowing mob influence and political intimidation to dictate verdicts signals a decline in American constitutional order and paves the way for increased tyranny.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Charlie Kirk (on video evidence & emotion):

  "If you look at the facts of the case... some of the experts that testified, they said that Derek Chauvin was completely within fair policing standards and how he acted." (04:14)

• Judge Peter Cahill (on Maxine Waters):

  "I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch in our function." (08:26)

• Alan Dershowitz (re: Maxine Waters):

  "It's borrowed precisely from the Ku Klux Klan of the 1930s..." (16:35)

• Charlie Kirk (media double standard):

  "If a Republican or a Trump supporting activist said, you know, if we don't get what we want, go loot, riot, burn, the FBI would visit them. But she says that and she gets applauded, she gets platformed." (26:10)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Recap of Case and Prosecution’s Argument: 02:08–05:34
• Maxine Waters’ “Confrontational” Comments: 06:44–07:07
• Judge Cahill on Waters’ Influence: 08:03–08:26
• Critical Race Theory and Mob Justice: 09:03–10:42
• Derek Johnson/NAACP and Civil Rights Comparison: 12:18–13:00
• Alan Dershowitz Compares Waters to KKK Tactics: 16:24–17:09
• Maxine Waters Activism History Montage: 21:10–22:20
• Activist Media and Response to Waters: 24:03–26:32
• Kirk on the Impact of the Verdict and Potential Civil Unrest: 36:06–38:48
• Broader Societal Reflection/Orwell & Huxley References: 38:48–End

---

Final Thoughts

Throughout the episode, Charlie Kirk expresses deep skepticism about the possibility of a fair trial for Derek Chauvin, especially in the climate of overwhelming media coverage, political interference, and public pressure. He frames the situation as symptomatic of America’s larger cultural and political rifts, warning his audience that constitutional norms are at risk from those who prioritize mob justice and ideological conformity over legal process and due process.

The episode is delivered in Charlie Kirk’s signature unapologetic and combative style:

"We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That’s why we are here." (Intro)

For listeners seeking clarity on conservative concerns surrounding the Chauvin trial and what it means for America’s justice system and political future, this episode provides a detailed and fiercely argued perspective.

Transcript

[Charlie Kirk]

Hey everybody. This episode is brought to you by my friends at ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN.com Charlie Secure your device. Anonymize your online activity. Protect your action online. Expressvpn.com Charlie help our show out by also helping yourself. Protect yourself. Expressvpn.com Charlie hey everybody. The verdict is in. Guilty. Derek Chauvin is guilty on all three counts. And this episode we recorded before that verdict came in. But almost all of this episode deals with the larger question of what was influencing the jury. What was the media coverage? Was it fair? Was the process actually followed? But I want you to think about whether or not you believe Derek Chauvin had a fair trial. Was Maxine Waters influential in the jury coming to this decision? Should there be another trial? Well, the judge comments on that and we have that sound here exclusively on the Charlie Kirk Show. So please consider supporting [e-mail] support I want to thank Kendrick from Alabama. I want to thank Mary from California. I want to thank Steve from California and Nick from Ohio for supporting [e-mail] support email us your thoughts and your questions as always. Freedomarliekirk.com Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point usa. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here.

[Unidentified Male Host/Commentator]

There is a lot to get to today, actually. I'm not too far from where the center of the cultural and political conversation is happening in our country in Minneapolis right now. And I want to get through some of this sound of what is happening with the trial of Derek Chauvin and the death of George Floyd. I want to get to the reaction of it. But there's something that's happening here that is deeper than just this trial. It really is a question of whether or not we are going to continue to trust our constitutional framework and with it due process and presumption of innocence, seeking facts, not emotion, as a way to govern ourselves. That's the deeper question at play here. Let's just have a little bit of a recap. So we've been watching the trial for the last Two weeks.

[Charlie Kirk]

And we made a video about a

[Unidentified Male Host/Commentator]

month and a half ago where I went through five facts around the death of George Floyd that you probably didn't know about. For example, that the original Hennepin county medical examiner ruled George Floyd's death a likely drug overdose. The fact that George Floyd mentioned seven times that he could not breathe or a police officer laid any hands on him, that he actually asked to be on the ground, these sorts of facts are very important. And it also pushes back against the emotion behind this entire case. The prosecution obviously disagrees with this. The prosecutor, Steve Schleicher, said in his closing arguments around Derek Chauvin that he did this on purpose and it killed George Floyd. Let's go to cut one. Prosecutor Steve Schleicher, Playtape.

[Prosecutor Steve Schleicher]

What the defendant did was not policing. What the defendant did was an assault. It was gratuitous. It was disproportionate. And he did it on purpose. No question. This was not an accident. He did not trip and fall and find himself upon George Floyd's knee and neck. He did what he did on purpose, and it killed George Floyd.

[Unidentified Male Host/Commentator]

Let's go to cut two of prosecutor Steve Schleicher, who concludes his closing argument by saying, this case is exactly what you thought when you saw it first, when you saw that video. It's exactly that. You can believe your eyes. This wasn't policing. This was murder. Now, he's setting the bar incredibly high here. Now he's being charged possibly for manslaughter and murder. But if you look at the facts of the case and you look at some of the testimony from some of the experts that testified, they said that Derek Chauvin was completely within fair policing standards and how he acted. Placott 2.

[Prosecutor Steve Schleicher]

This case is exactly what you thought when you saw it first, when you saw that video. It is exactly that. You can believe your eyes. It's exactly what you believed. It's exactly what you saw with your eyes. It's exactly what you knew. It's what you felt in your gut. It's what you now know in your heart. This wasn't policing. This was murder. The defendant is guilty of all three counts,

[Tucker Carlson]

Oliver.

[Prosecutor Steve Schleicher]

And there's no excuse. Thank you.

[Unidentified Male Host/Commentator]

His closing argument, and not in addition to that, that's a really poorly constructed logical framing that he's guilty because you know what you felt. Because the video was so graphic. You see, he kind of avoids the fact that there was an original autopsy that said that George Floyd was under the influence of drugs. Instead, he says, no the way you feel is the way that we must pursue in the sentencing. So then, as the jury deliberates, Congresswoman Maxine Waters decides to weigh in. Now, she's not a very smart person, but she's a very powerful person and extraordinarily angry. The fact that this is the best

[Charlie Kirk]

that we have to offer in a

[Unidentified Male Host/Commentator]

representative government, I think, is just a reflection of how broken our system is. So Maxine Waters takes to the streets wearing some form of goggles and some bizarre mask, and she's just screaming at this reporter, and she says, quote, that if they do not get guilty on all three accounts, she says, guilty, guilty, guilty, then protesters need to get more confrontational.

[Maxine Waters]

And I don't know what's going to happen to it, but I know this. We've got to stay in the street and we've got to. We've got to demand justice.

[Charlie Kirk]

What happens?

[Interviewer/Questioner]

What should protesters do?

[Maxine Waters]

Well, we got to stay on the street, and we've got to get more active. We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business.

[Unidentified Male Host/Commentator]

So there she says that we must get more confrontational and we must get into the streets. What Maxine Waters is doing is she is holding the entire Minneapolis community hostage. She's holding them captive. This is a shakedown to try to strike fear into the Minneapolis business owners. And now she is interfering directly with not just the trial and the proceedings, but the jury's decision. Now, Derek Chauvin's lawyer, Eric Nelson, immediately pinpointed this, and what the judge said in response is incredible play.

[Charlie Kirk]

Cut 15.

[Unidentified Male Host/Commentator]

Now that we have US representatives threatening acts of

[Charlie Kirk]

violence in relation to this specific case,

[Unidentified Male Host/Commentator]

it's mind boggling to me.

[Judge Peter Cahill]

Judge well, I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned. But what's the state's position?

[Unidentified Male Host/Commentator]

And the state did not respond. And then cut 16 is that judge Peter Cahill slammed Maxine Waters for her threatening comments, calling them abhorrent and disrespectful to the rule of law. Cut 16.

[Judge Peter Cahill]

I'm aware that Congressman Waters was talking specifically about this trial and about the unacceptability of anything less than a murder conviction. This goes back to what I've been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch in our function. I think if they want to give their opinions they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution to respect a co equal branch of government. Their failure to do so, I think is abhorrent.

[Unidentified Male Host/Commentator]

As John Adams famously said, facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. See, Maxine Waters is pushing back not just against this specific trial. She's pushing back against the constitutional framework that we have of a jury of your peers, a speedy and quick and fair trial, the presumption of innocence, the introduction of evidence. That's what Maxine Waters is pushing back against. And we should ask ourselves the question why? Well, it's because that system within it has a guarantee, a promise of fairness. But Maxine Waters is playing into a core belief of the critical race theory. Maxine Water is playing Waters is playing into a belief that it does not matter what the evidence says. It does not matter what the facts of the situation point to. Instead, if you feel a certain way or if you believe in this counter narrative, then that should overwhelm a situation. I want to explore this deeper because this sort of new form of mob justice, where you are going to sit down and obey and do what we are told, is a fundamental attack on the promise of a constitutional republic.

[Charlie Kirk]

Look for many of you that watch our livestream or our radio show listen to our radio show. You know, I talk about relief factor a lot. And look, truth is I know millions of people are in some kind of pain, maybe from exercise or just getting older that can do it. That's why I'm so impressed with Pete and Seth Talbot. They are on a mission. You rarely seen this kind of focus and commitment. Seriously. They recently shared with me that they are doubling down and want to literally double their number of total happy customers in the next year. And I believe they'll do it. So here's the deal. If you're struggling with back, neck, shoulder, hip or knee pain or even general muscle aches and pain, then I'm suggesting you order their three week quick start, still discount only $19.95, about a dollar a day to see if we can get you out of pain. So go to relieffactor.com that's relieffactor.com the Talbots are amazing people. Check it out. Reliefactor.com Maxine Waters is leading the charge alongside Al Sharpton and Tahanisi Coates and Robin Diangelo to try and say that if we do not get exactly what we demand, we're gonna burn it all to the ground now. The NAACP CEO, the National association for the Advancement of Colored People, that's actually the name of the naacp probably in need of a rebranding when you actually talk about the acronym. Derek Johnson went on CBS this Morning and he is comparing the death of George Floyd to the civil rights fight in the American South. Cut 46. He says the world is watching. He says this is our Selma moment. Cut 46.

[Interviewer/Questioner]

Get away from the fact that this is our Selma moment.

[Charlie Kirk]

What do you mean?

[Interviewer/Questioner]

You know, when you think about Selma, that was about voting reform to allow

[Charlie Kirk]

our democracy to work.

[Interviewer/Questioner]

Right now we're talking about our criminal justice system, the reforms to ensure that we can restore trust and we can feel safe.

[Charlie Kirk]

That's really important for the African American community at this moment. So he is now making an argument that the civil rights movement that was, by the way, opposed by Southern Democrats and pushed by Republicans is somehow the same fight as a very complicated police stop with someone that was overdosing. That's the same thing. What a disservice to the people that actually pushed forward the civil rights movement. It's actually incredibly insulting to Martin Luther King Jr. To say that those two things are even remotely the same thing. And so they are trying and they are mobilizing the shock troops to try to make the biggest and most powerful display imaginable if they do not get a verdict that they want. I think a more likely scenario is that Derek Chauvin will be found guilty of manslaughter and probably be sentenced to five to 10 years. I think that is probably where the jury is going to land. Second degree murder is a very high threshold to reach because the criminal justice system, for good reason, is supposed to work in a deliberate, intentional, methodical way that preserves your first freedoms. And also, if there is any doubt whatsoever, the default position is that you get your freedom because that is who you are in the state of nature. Taking someone's freedom away, putting them in a prison cell is a big deal. Now, intentions are hard to prove, but they're not impossible to prove. Sometimes you're able to find text messages, emails, conversations, witness testimony. For examp, if Derek Chauvin would have turned to one of his fellow police officers and would have said, oh, I'm going to go after him and I'm going to teach him a lesson, that would have been a testimony that would have been very powerful in saying that his intention was to do something, anything less than policing. There's been plenty of testimony that has said that Derek Chauvin acted improperly. There's also been plenty of testimony so that Derek Chauvin acted perfectly correctly. The fact that there's anyone that has testified that Derek Chauvin acted correctly throws at least a little bit of a seed of doubt. You have to understand that people like Hakeem Jeffries and Derek Johnson and Maxine Waters, they became more important last summer after these race riots. The idea that a jury might issue a verdict and say, no, you guys actually got too angry last summer. Maybe that BLM Incorporated should have a little bit of a de emphasized role in the American political campaign conversation. This is a question of whether or not they're going to continue to have all of this attention, all of this funding and the prominence. That's really what's on trial here. What's really on trial here is the racial reckoning that happened in the last year. Was it warranted and the facts are pointing to no, it wasn't. That. All of this racial reckoning was actually a misrepresentation of a highly complicated moment. Joe Biden has now weighed in on the George Floyd proceedings. Let's hear what he has to say. They're a good family and they're calling for peace and tranquility. No matter what that verdict is. I'm praying the verdict is the right verdict, which is. I think it's overwhelming, in my view. So Joe Biden says he's hoping for the right verdict. I think he said that means it's guilty, in my view. He said that the evidence is overwhelming. So now you are seeing a lot of people try to preempt and try to raise the standard, because anything less than that will be met with widespread outrage. Let's go to cuts.

[Unidentified Male Host/Commentator]

I don't know which cut.

[Charlie Kirk]

This is Dershowitz. We have him on here somewhere. Who says what Maxine Waters did was no different than what the KKK used to do in the American South Playtape.

[Alan Dershowitz]

Her message was clearly intended to get to the jury. If you acquit or if you find a charge less than murder, we will burn down your buildings. We will burn down your businesses. We will attack you. We will do. What happened to the witness? Blood on their door. This was an attempt to intimidate the jury. It's borrowed precisely from the Ku Klux Klan of the 1930s and 1920s, when the Klan would march outside of courthouses and threaten all kinds of reprisals if the jury ever dared convict a white person or acquit a black person.

[Charlie Kirk]

So Maxine Waters Amongst others, Hakeem Jeffries, Robin d', Angelo, Taha Nisi Coates. They are beginning a preemptive strike against the jury because they're very worried. I teased this in the previous segment and I want to build this out further. After the death of George Floyd, a bunch of people without talent and wisdom got a lot of power and money. They became really important, including Maxine Waters. An entire cottage industry was created around race baiting in America almost overnight. Now, it existed before George Floyd, but the flow of money, the activism, the book sales, the TV interviews, they skyrocketed after the death of George Floyd, all under a guiding narrative and principle that that George Floyd was targeted because of his race and he was murdered on the side of the street. And so as this trial has proceeded and these facts have been given some airtime, all of a sudden, as I'm just talking to everyday Americans, people no longer are repeating the line or the lie from last summer that this was purely a racial incident. In fact, people are saying, yeah, George Floyd was overdosing, he was resisting arrest, and this was obviously not a desirable outcome. But this was not a 1920s KKK style lynching, which is what we were programmed to believe. If all you watched was CNN or read the New York Times or flipped through your Instagram feed. Lee Strobel is an amazing Christian apologist. He wrote the book Case for Christ. It's one of my favorite books. And Lee Strobel argues in his book that if you are able to disprove the resurrection with it, you are able to disprove Christianity. And I think he's generally right about that, that the heart of Christianity was not the fact that Jesus existed. It wasn't the fact that Jesus had inspired people, that he said things that were true. But if you are able to prove or disprove the Resurrection, Christianity just begins to fall apart. Now, Lee Strobel was a fact finding editor for the Chicago Sondheim's Tribune, and he was an atheist. And he started to investigate this. And as he investigated it, he realized that the amount of evidence around the Resurrection was so overwhelming, he himself became a Christian. So Lee Strobel's entire belief is that if you're able to disprove the Resurrection, Christianity becomes completely debunked. I don't think the situation here is dissimilar. If you are able to come up with a verdict that says that George Floyd did not die because the intentional preconceived motivation of Derek Chauvin, then the religion of Wokeism, all of A sudden becomes a lot less powerful in America. But all of a sudden the woke industrial complex is going to have to explain the. That a jury of the peers, they're actually in on the game too. The white supremacist jury of their peers, even though there are, I believe, four black members of this jury. So the jury is now sequestered and we don't know the decision that they are going to move forward with. I could see a reasonable manslaughter decision. However, the bar is now being set that anything but life in prison, second degree murder is not acceptable. What if I told you that Maxine Waters actually wants race riots? What if I told you that Maxine Waters has actually called for this before? Cut 43. Maxine Waters has been race baiting literally before I was born. This was 1992. I was born in 93. She has been in this cottage industry for quite some time. Play tape.

[Maxine Waters]

There are scores of injuries and still anger and frustration and people who plan on staying on the streets and expressing their outrage and anger in any way they deem necessary. There are those who would like for me and others and all of us to tell people to go inside to be peaceful, that they have to accept the verdict. I accept the responsibility of asking people not to endanger their lives. I am not asking people not to be angry.

[Charlie Kirk]

So she has a history of this. And now that she has called for people to be confrontational, which she's done before, I think we have a flashback clip here of Maxine Waters in June of 2018. Remember this? Cut 23. She says, if you see anybody from that cabinet, you get out there, you create a groundswell, you push back, you tell them they are not welcome here. Cut 23.

[Maxine Waters]

And if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you dispatch on them and you tell them they're not welcome.

[Charlie Kirk]

And so what's really happening here is a group of people that are getting nervous that this entire racial reconciliation moment, which, by the way, is nothing more than a business strategy, that's all this is. It's a group of people that really do not have talent and they do not have wisdom, that have gotten really rich and really powerful and really popular basically overnight because of a misinterpretation of what happened in Minneapolis. That's basically what is at play here. So the only way you could possibly preempt this, the only way you could possibly keep that power, that influence and that money, is to try and Prep the population, that no matter what the decision is, they're in on it, that we're not going to accept it, that the white supremacist system is actually influencing the jury in some way, that if the jury does not do what we tell them to do, we are going to burn the country to the ground. Let's go to a cut here. Cut 38. This is the activist media defending Maxine Waters. This is your activist media. I'm not sure if it's your activist media, but it's the activist media defending Maxine Waters, who, before I play this tape, they impeached Donald Trump for allegedly inciting a crowd, which we now know is not true. Maxine Waters has done worse than what Donald Trump. Not even the same category of what he said. And yet they defend her. Play tape. Do you really think she's calling for violence? Most people know that that's not true. And the people who are speaking out against her are using it politically. The judges opining about whether it was

[Tucker Carlson]

appropriate or right for elected officials to

[Charlie Kirk]

talk about a trial seemed to me itself a bit inappropriate. Like, it's a free country, you can talk about whatever you want.

[Maxine Waters]

The judge lashing out at a US

[Charlie Kirk]

Congresswoman, even mentioning the possibility that a verdict could be overturned in the future. I don't think that Maxine meant anything

[Maxine Waters]

by that except to say, you have to stick with it. You know, you have to be there.

[Charlie Kirk]

One little thing like this and they jump all over her.

[Maxine Waters]

I mean, she's one one congresswoman.

[Charlie Kirk]

It's just delicious, isn't it? Because this is a Democrat judge who's trying to do his job, and he sees what Maxine Waters has said, and he said it's abhorrent, it's reprehensible, and it does not have respect to the Constitution. Now, I'm going to give the judge a little bit of grace here, but soon the judge is going to wake up and realize, as he's a Democrat, the Democrat Party doesn't have any respect for the Constitution. That's what we're dealing with here.

[Unidentified Male Host/Commentator]

We have been dealing with here.

[Charlie Kirk]

But now, of course, he's the enemy, right? Don Lamond and Joyce whatever, her name is. Joy Behar, whatever. And the Chris Hayes, msnbc. They're really angry that a judge might all of a sudden call out Maxine Waters for trying to incite terrorism in our country. Cut 28. Here's a radical black activist who wants to watch the country burn. This is a person on television or on some sort of network. If a Trump supporter said this, they would be arrested. Playtape.

[Maxine Waters]

For the record, I support all that. I support them looting the damn dollar tree. I support the looting of. What other did they loot? Like the advanced auto parts. I remember last year they looted Target. I support all that. Loot all that. Do you know why? Because black people and marginalized and oppressed people could loot every store in this whole country for 200 years. It would not even come close to the debt that America owes us. Tear all that up. Tear it up. Because really, that's the language. That's the only language this country understands.

[Charlie Kirk]

She's like Aristotle, so profound, swears every other word. She can't even get her department stores correct. No. So that's where we're at. So I just wanna make sure that we're all clear. If a Republican or a Trump supporting activist said, you know, if we don't get what we want, go loot, riot,

[Maxine Waters]

burn,

[Charlie Kirk]

the FBI would visit them. But she says that and she gets applauded, she gets platformed. I don't even know her name, but she has some sort of a show. Everyone has a show now, including us, but she has a show and she is trying to mobilize people and encourage them to loot, riot and burn. What's really happening here is that this is an attack on our fundamental system, our constitutional republic that has deliberative justice, that has a process to take people's freedoms away. The left wing activists that are now running our country, they have grown impatient with that process. They say, that piece of paper, the Constitution, we've hated that for quite some time. We want to get rid of it. We want to have a system where if we yell loud enough and we demand it, we pound the table, we can lock you into prison indefinitely. Derek Chauvin has had a trial. I don't even think it's been a fair trial, by the way, because I think the jury should have been sequestered. And I love the judge. The judge says, yeah, the jury has been told not to watch the news. Okay, explain to me how that exactly is happening when they have iPhones and they have friends contacting them. I highly doubt they're not watching this. I just highly doubt that however he's at generally a fair trial, the judge has opened the door for possibly a retrial. But if this decision is not what Maxine Waters wants, she is going to deploy the infantry against our fellow countrymen. A few decades ago, private citizens used to be that private citizens. What's changed? The Internet think about everything you've browsed, searched for, watched, or tweeted. Now imagine all of that data being crawled through, collected and aggregated by third parties into a permanent public record. Your record having your life exposed for others to see was once something only celebrities worried about. But in an era where everyone is online and everyone is a public figure, to keep my data private, when I go online, I always turn on ExpressVPN. Did you know that there are hundreds of data brokers out there whose sole business is to buy and sell your data? The worst part is they don't have to tell you who they're selling it to or get your consent. One of the data points is your IP address. Data harvesters use your IP address to uniquely identify you and your location. But with ExpressVPN, my connection gets rerouted through encrypted server and my IP address is masked. Every time I turn on ExpressVPN, I'm given a random IP address shared by other ExpressVPN customers. That makes it more difficult for third parties to identify me and harvest my data. And the best part is how ExpressVPN, how easy it is to use no matter what device you're on. Phone or laptop, maybe smart tv. So if you're like me and you believe that your data is your business, go to expressvpn.com Charlie and get three extra months free. E X P R-E-S-S-V-P N.com Charlie go to expressvpn.com charlie let's get to some more sound here. I want to get to cut 34. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. Regardless of the decision, there's one reality that George Floyd was killed at the hands of police.

[Unidentified Male Host/Commentator]

Cut 34.

[Charlie Kirk]

Regardless of the outcome of this trial, regardless of the decision made by the jury, there is one true reality, which is that George Floyd was killed at the hands of police. So this is their narrative that they're going to continue to push forward regardless of the verdict. They're nervous. They are nervous that they do not have a closed and shut case to be able to convict Derek Chauvin to prison for the rest of his life. I want to go to cut 18. Matthew Dowd, who is the chief strategist for George Bush on cnn, defending Maxine Waters for inciting anti police violence. Of course he worked for George Bush. Cut 18.

[Tucker Carlson]

I actually just listened to Maxine Waters and of course we all have to be cognizant of what we say. I don't think what she said in any way should. We should Criticize her for. Of course we should be more confrontational.

[Unidentified Male Host/Commentator]

Who is this guy?

[Charlie Kirk]

Of course he's on cnn. Work for George W. Bush. That tells you everything you need to know. But Tucker Carlson had something to say. Cut 19. Tucker said people like Maxine Waters don't care if you point out they are hypocrites. And this is such an important point. Tucker is pinpointing here that Maxine Waters has no moral compass at all whatsoever. She will do what is ever in the best interest of her trying to pursue power play. Cut 19. And then I want you to think about Maxine Waters. What makes Maxine Waters different than some of the other activists? Playtape.

[Tucker Carlson]

People like Maxine Waters don't care if you point out that they're hypocrites. They don't care if you catch them lying. You're wasting your breath when you point this out. They are not ashamed. They never will be ashamed. So how do you respond to people like this? Well, the only thing you can do is tell the truth about who they are. Maxine Waters is someone who supports mob violence. She always has support. We have known this.

[Unidentified Male Host/Commentator]

Typically, these sorts of threats against our system come outside of government, not within our government. Also, typically this sort of action comes from younger zealots like AOC or Ayanna Pressley. So this is a person inside our system who typically has some respect and restrained by duty. And someone who's very old, like Maxine Waters, which means she should be filled with wisdom and measure, has placed themselves at the forefront of calling for violence against civic institutions and citizens. This is just another sign of the devolving standards and a breakdown of institutions and leadership, where you have someone who's supposed to be someone who slows things down and offers wisdom. She's leading the charge to deconstruct the west. And she has defenders and the activist media.

[Charlie Kirk]

And a singular judge, a Democrat judge in Minneapolis, can't believe what's actually happening around him. And for those of us that follow the news on a daily basis and actually have seen the cultural and political decline of our country, we know they have hated this process for quite some time. They are just finally getting the institutional support to be able to administer the death blow to our constitutional republic, which is a firewall against despotism and tyranny. The only way we're going to stop it is call them out, be public about it, and never give an inch to the people like Maxine Waters. And I want to close the loop on the Maxine Waters topic. And then I want to get into George W. Bush and do that correctly. I want to go to cut 25 of Tucker Carlson on the CNN reporter asking Nancy Pelosi if Maxine waters should apologize.

[Tucker Carlson]

Cut 25 A CNN reporter asked Nancy Pelosi today if Maxine Waters should apologize for what she said for whipping the mob into violence. No, Pelosi said, quote, maxine talks about confrontation in the manner of the civil rights movement. What an insult, by the way, to the actual civil rights movement. Then she was asked if Maxine Waters, his comments incited violence. And Pelosi said this, quote, no, absolutely not.

[Charlie Kirk]

And Tucker is making the point that we made. We're both making the same point. I didn't even see this clip before this. And we're saying the same thing, which shows that so obvious what is happening. If we're able to draw the conclusion that how dare you compare the civil rights movement to what is happening right now.

[Unidentified Male Host/Commentator]

Kevin McCarthy has come out and said that Maxine Waters believes that there is value in violence. Cut 17 well, I believe it rises

[Charlie Kirk]

to that level because Maxine Waters believes there's value in violence. This is the first time she's done something like this. Remember what she, she said for in the past administration, for people to get in their faces to challenge everyone. And now what she has said has even put doubt into a jury. You had a judge announce that it was wrong. And so now there is growing condemnation against Maxine Waters and there should be. But the entire Democrat industrial complex, alongside those people that have made a tremendous amount of money on this, are sowing the seeds of doubt. If they do not get their desired position, they do not get their desired outcome in this trial. And the activist media, of course, has been defending Maxine Waters throughout all of this. We played a super cut previously of that. Representative Hakeem Jeffries responds, of course, attacking Republicans. Cut 44 when Kevin McCarthy says he wants to censure Representative Maxine Waters. Cut 44 Representative Hakeem Jeffries response cut

[Interviewer/Questioner]

44 when you think that Kevin McCarthy has the nerve to say something about anyone when he supported the violent insurrection after the mob attacked the Capitol, threatened to assassinate Nancy Pelosi, kill other members of Congress, hang Mike Pence. He then came back to the Capitol, voted to support the big lie which ignited the violent insurrection and continues to play footsie with Donald Trump. When you've got a situation where Lauren Boebert is a mess, Matt Gaetz is a mess, Marjorie Taylor Greene is a mess, clean up your mess, Kevin. Sit this one out.

[Charlie Kirk]

And no acknowledgment at all whatsoever that Maxine Waters is interfering with a jury deliberation in Minneapolis. So it's going to be a very interesting item to keep our eyes on of whether or not the country at large and the activists will accept what comes out of Minneapolis. But we all know how this is likely going to play out, that the jury is going to do their job. The jury is either going to be a hung jury because they can't decide they're going to have guilty on every account. I think that's unlikely. Or that they're going to issue a manslaughter verdict. And then the judge will have to sentence Derek Chauvin based that, maybe five years or 10 years. And if that happens, the country will explode. People will die as a result of that. This businesses will be burned and looted. So basically, we're in a situation that massive civil unrest is almost guaranteed at this moment. And this is not just largely, but it's solely because of the irresponsibility of our rulers and of the leaders of our country. It's because of the people that govern our country and have been entrusted with a responsibility to pass down this promise from one generation to the other. Here's a question for you. Are our leaders calling for calm, or are they playing into it? Why is it almost as if the activist media is cheering for widespread unrest? What do they get out of that? It's a really interesting question. Why is it that the people in charge actually want unrest? They want unrest because the more discord there is, the easier it is to establish a form of a dictatorship or a despot, a despotic ruler. You see, there are several attributes to authoritarianism and tyranny. I've been rereading 1984 and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. It feels as if we're living in this strange blend of both of those at the same time. One by George Orwell, one by Alice Huxley. And tyranny is a very tricky thing. But in order to justify more power and more control, you need a reason. You need to explain that, at least in the moment, or you need to stoke enough fear to give people

[Judge Peter Cahill]

the

[Charlie Kirk]

argument to approve that power. So when you have widespread chaos in the streets of Minneapolis or New York or Philadelphia or Atlanta or D.C. which is looming, then why wouldn't people want, all of a sudden, leaders say, you need to have more power. Now, what's strange is that they actually do not. They're not going to say, give us more power to make the streets safe. Instead, they're going to say, give us more power to unravel the system so that eventually the riots, the protests can stop. And they're not protests. They are massive terrorist campaigns against American cities. And so there are a couple things that we must pinpoint when we see this looming threat, threat of tyranny against our country and against our constitutional republic. Tyranny operates in a pattern. You get no privacy or solitude. You must think the party line. Children are not allowed to be raised by their parents. The rules are always changing. They're constantly, always trying to remake human nature. The party wants obedience over freedom and pleasure over virtue and outrage at anything that might not toe the party line. Does that sound familiar? It's what we're living through. So Minneapolis is a test case of whether or not what's happening with Derek Chauvin and the George Floyd trial. It's a test case of whether or not we have the shock absorbers to be able to take another hit, another inflection point. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. If you want to get involved with Turning Point USA, go to tpusa.com email us your thoughts and your questions. Freedomarliekirk.com God bless you guys. Speak to you soon.