Blake Neff (3:04)

Yes. I mean, let's just recite it where he says, kent, this is Shellenberger's reporting on Substack. Kent said he knew he might be called as a witness before he made his statements that a, quote, foreign nexus may have been involved in Kirk's assassination. I was definitely warned of that over and over again, said Kent. If I end up having to play that role, then I'll do it. It's not something I'm seeking. When pressed that his testimony could help the Robinson defense, Kent said, then honestly, so be it. If it gets us to the truth, that's obviously the risk I'm taking. Neither Robinson's attorneys nor the prosecuting attorneys responded to request for comment. And then looks, I'm not sure if there's more. I might have to pay for Shellenberger's subscription.

Andrew Colvett (3:47)

Yeah. But, yeah, I'm sure it does go further. And we're going to, like I said, be talking to Michael Shellenberger. And this to me is, this is Galaxy Brain run amok. And let me explain why I say that. Jonathan Turley, who is a. I guess he's a contributor to Fox News, legal contributor, he's a professor of law at George Washington University, said that 90% of the evidence accumulated against Tyler Robinson could be thrown out. So the defense could be successful in throwing out 90% of the evidence, and he would still be found guilty of murder.

Blake Neff (4:27)

Let's refresh, people. There is a murder weapon that was found near the site of the shooting. It was owned by Tyler Robinson's family,

Andrew Colvett (4:36)

given to him by his grandpa of

Blake Neff (4:38)

the caliber used to shoot Charlie. It has his DNA all over it,

Andrew Colvett (4:42)

all over the casings.

Tom Homan (4:43)

He.

Blake Neff (4:44)

They release a photo of the shooter. They are not able to find him otherwise. Tyler Robinson's parents see that photo and think, that looks like Tyler. They begin asking him things like, where is your. I believe it was his grandfather's gun. They start asking him this. Tyler Robinson starts talking like he might kill himself. They get a friend of the family to sit down with him.

Tom Homan (5:05)

He.

Blake Neff (5:05)

He actually. He admits that it's him. They get him to drive up to Orym and turn himself in. His parents helped him turn him in. And we run into people who say that that didn't happen or that's fabricated.

Andrew Colvett (5:17)

There's digital confessions.

Blake Neff (5:18)

There's digital confessions. But also, his parents are out there. They have never stepped forward and said this is a lie. They could easily do that. It would be trivial to do that if it was the case. They have not done that. His parents turned him in. That is the most obvious piece of evidence in the world that nothing can argue around. And some people are so obsessed with these same conspiracies that they concoct for every other thing that ever happens. And so they have to shove it into this one too, because they care more about their conspiracy theories than about the person who murdered my friend facing justice. I am fed up with it.

Andrew Colvett (5:55)

Yeah, and you should be. And this is. I mean, this is a tough job for us today, to be honest, because this is really personal. I have been open to everything. I think, candidly, I don't get enough credit for even the fact that I shared these group chats in the first place. We shared a lot of information about trans. About Charlie, How Charlie was more concerned than any other community about the trans coming after him. You want to know the truth? That's actually the truth. I heard over the course of the last two years of Charlie's life, probably about 50 references of how he knew the trans tifa was going to come after him. And he was worried about that. That's the truth. Never mentioned one time about the Jews, okay? Never once. And here's why it's so frustrating is because there is going to be even more evidence that is presented to the public in May at the evidentiary hearing. Okay? And it's a mountain of evidence, some of which has been made public, some of which has not been made public yet. And the prosecution is going to lay out its case against Tyler Robinson. And I'm told it's a whopper. I'm told they've got this guy dead to rights. And meanwhile you have government officials that are now saying on the record to journalists they are willing to testify on, on behalf of the defense to get, ostensibly to get Tyler Robinson off the hook for something that he did. And so the level of betrayal that I currently feel is dramatic and extreme. The level of just frustration, the idiocy that is on full display, we have to call it out. Because if this ends up screwing up the jury pool, if this ends up in some ways getting a hung jury, getting a. Getting this taste this case thrown out, or even just getting the death penalty off the case, off the potential list of consequences here, I'm not going to be happy with that. I'm telling you that as somebody who was open to all different options, I didn't care where the truth led. This is where the truth led. This is it. And for any fair minded person, this is Crackpot conspiracy garbage, brain rot stuff. And now it's gotten really serious. This isn't podcaster junk. This isn't like social media conspiracy nonsense. This is an actual government official who's now going to be called to testify on behalf of the defense. And that is a bridge too far. That is a line in the sand that we must hold because this could negatively impact the trial of the assassin of my friend, of Blake's friend. So that's the breaking news. This is an egregious, egregious moment that we're having to live through. When you read food labels today, it's obvious we've over complicated nutrition, chemical names you can't pronounce, ingredients that sound like they belong in a lab instead of a kitchen. Here's the simple truth. Plants have their own nutrition. They're called phytonutrients. And your body knows exactly what to do with them. That's what drew me to balance of nature. They take fruits and vegetables and put them through a special vacuum cold process to stabilize that phytonutrition. Nothing weird, nothing artificial. Their whole health system gives you fruits and veggies, plus fiber and spice. 47 whole food ingredients. I take it every day because it's simple and it works with my routine. If you want to make nutrition simple again and fight the good fight, go to balanceofnature.com to subscribe and save today. Join hundreds of thousands of customers in one simple routine that's changing their lives for the better. All right, as we mentioned earlier, we were going to be joined by Michael Shellenberger and he's joining us now. Welcome to the show, Michael. It's great to have you. Thank you for. You know, we talked this morning after your story broke and boy, oh, boy, this is a big one. And you interviewed Joe Kent, and so I'll let you say it in your own words. What did he tell you?

Michael Shellenberger (10:06)

Hey, thanks for having me on, Andrew, inviting me on. Yeah, I mean, I think it's pretty big news. Joe Kent, of course, the former director of the National Counterterrorism center, has been saying for the last week that he thinks that he doesn't buy the lone shooter theory of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. He suspects there's a foreign nexus. Was the words he used involved in that assassination. He said that the FBI prevented him from investigating it and that he viewed that as suspicious. And if there was nothing there, he told me, then why did they prevent him from investigating it? I asked him if he was aware before he went public last Week that Tyler Robinson, the suspected assassin of Charlie Kirk, that his defense attorneys might actually call Kent to the witness stand to argue that Robinson could not be convicted because the prosecutors had not given them all the information they had available to them. That's something known as the Brady Rule, named after a Supreme Court decision, I believe, in the 1960s. But nonetheless, most people are familiar with it from television, which is that the prosecutors can't deny federal government, can't deny, the government can't deny the defense any information. And Kent is saying that there is information and that the investigation itself was inadequate and that, you know, I spoke to a constitutional law legal scholar yesterday who said, you know, it would be a no brainer for the defense attorneys now for Robinson to use Kent's statements as a way to, you know, gain an advantage or potentially a hung jury or a mistrial or something of that nature. So it's pretty serious for people that are interested in seeing justice served with the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Andrew Colvett (11:56)

Well, listen, Michael, I know that you have to be sort of dispassionate. You're a reporter, but to me, this feels like a giant red line. This feels like Galaxy brain run amok. Did you get a chance to ask him just straight up? Just because he didn't get let into the investigation doesn't mean it wasn't investigated.

Michael Shellenberger (12:16)

Yeah, I mean, thanks. I appreciate the point. I mean, I'm trying to. You know, I mean, the truth is, I actually like kind of everybody involved in this. I've always. I've actually admired Kent and the things he said in the past. I also care a lot about the transgender issue. We reported it exclusively on leaked files.

Andrew Colvett (12:37)

You're amazing on this issue, Michael. Just to. Just to underscore your point, you have been one of the. The lead voices exposing some of the craziness and the zaniness behind the transgender radical trans ideology. So I just wanted to give you some bona fides there.

Michael Shellenberger (12:54)

Thank you. Yeah, it's a. Obviously it's a big issue, and I think many Americans felt that they didn't need to pay attention to the issue at all. But now we've seen trans identified people engaged in shootings, obviously, or maybe not obviously. Probably. Obviously to your audience, it was the last thing that Charlie Kirk was talking about before he was assassinated. It appears as though the evidence that Tyler Robinson committed that assassination is pretty overwhelming. And to be fair to Joe Kent, he didn't dispute that. What he's raising here is that there may be some broader conspiracy, and there's not a Lot of evidence for that. But nonetheless, because Kent is such an important voice, he could easily be used by the defense attorneys. I did directly ask him repeatedly that, you know, given that his agency is an intelligence gathering and really an intelligence synthesizing and coordinating agencies, part of the broader coordinating intelligence mission of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, you know, he didn't have the authorities to do a law enforcement investigation. It was FBI investigation. And, you know, didn't he sort of need to trust that his colleagues at the FBI and elsewhere or also with the Utah police, law enforcement, at some point, you know, you can pass along a tip or an idea, but don't you at some point have to sort of trust unless you have other evidence, you know, And I asked him if he had other evidence, you know, of some sort of corruption or conspiracy, and he said he didn't. So it kind of raises the question of, you know, know, what is this sort of based on? Because I think it's worth pointing out to people that the restrictions on Kent's authority to investigate the Kirk murder are not arbitrary. It's not something that Director Cash Patel, whatever you think of him, sort of invented as a way to stymie a proper investigation. Those. Those restrictions on investigative power are what protect us as citizens. It's written into our Constitution. It's part of our Lockean system of government. And I think we saw those. We saw the intelligence community abuse those powers to create the Russiagate hoax, you know, the Russiagate conspiracy hoax. So. And it's not just that. I mean, we can go through, you know, the intel that wasn't the first time the intelligence community had abused its powers, but when you go through. So. So these.

Tom Homan (15:19)

The.

Michael Shellenberger (15:20)

The restrictions on Kent that I think for people that maybe haven't thought about it a lot or haven't,

Danielle Cozetto (15:27)

you know,

Michael Shellenberger (15:27)

that don't work, don't. Aren't familiar with the intricacies of why these laws exist. I think it's important context, like these laws are not there to prevent a thorough investigation or to cover up things. And it certainly wasn't a subjective determination by the FBI director. It's written into laws. And those laws are there, you know, first and foremost to protect us, obviously. But obviously part of the process of protecting innocent civilians is also to make sure that you get the guilty party and you don't go off and engage in activities that would potentially entrap innocent people.

Blake Neff (16:00)

So two questions for you, Michael. So, first of all, I just want to really harp on this point. He didn't present any did he present a single example of evidence against Tyler Robinson that he believes may have been flawed or mistaken on one end? And on the other end, did he give you a single concrete example of evidence in the case that he believes that specifically that went uninvestigated by the FBI or by any other law enforcement?

Michael Shellenberger (16:31)

I'm afraid I can't answer all of these questions because I have to protect. But I will say that he presented nothing on the record and hasn't presented anything on the record.

Andrew Colvett (16:43)

Okay. So I wanna. I would love to follow up on that, but I have a feeling that we're gonna. Yeah, there's nothing you could say. Yeah, I mean, here's the problem, though. So he's now essentially said that he's willing to go testify ostensibly on behalf of the defense on Tyler Robinson's defense. I've heard him say in other interviews that, you know, he said, I'm sure there's a slam dunk case against Tyler Robinson. I'm not saying it wasn't him, but now it seems like almost he's move on from that point. Did you ascertain his sense, his internal sense of the guilt of Tyler Robinson or not?

Michael Shellenberger (17:25)

Well, let's get into this part because this is extremely important and important to understand. And I posted all of the on the record portions of our interview. I posted and also was very careful to make sure that the stuff that was posted was on the record after the fact, confirmed it with Kent earlier today, before publishing. So everything that's in that, in that recording. It's over 30 minutes, I think what's. He also said that he thought that there was a strong case against Robinson. And I don't think he's changed that view. I. I'm not. Well, I should put it this way. I don't think anybody in the media had yet asked him directly and kind of consistently if he was aware that his allegations could be used by Robinson's defense team to argue that Robinson was potentially a victim of a wider conspiracy. And Kent said that he was aware of that before going public. The Brady Rule is not an obscure rule. I mean, everybody knows that defense attorneys are going to need to know everything that went into some investigation, any government investigation. That's a really important civilization, Liberty's protection, you know, and similarly, it's a protection. You know, it's protection of the innocent. It's. It's a strong protection of people, of defendants that people may be very convinced are already guilty, but it's also there to make sure that, that, that you're not, you know, like, we've been talking about abusing those authorities. But he said he was aware of that. He said he wasn't, like, volunteering to. To testify. But he said he was aware that he. He might be asked to investigate. And like I said, I think. I think if. I'd be shocked if Robinson's attorneys don't use this.

Andrew Colvett (19:12)

Well, of course, yeah. This is the obvious. This is the obvious result of this, is that he's doing this PR tour.

Blake Neff (19:19)

And that's what infuriates me, is he's like, endlessly. He's like someone who's vague, posting on Facebook where he's like, there's things I might know, people should know. I might.

Andrew Colvett (19:29)

But I can't tell you what's ozone.

Blake Neff (19:30)

But I can't go on the record with this reporter that I'm talking to. I can't say what you actually think happened. If you want to do that, you can at least argue with him. But like, this endless appeal to. Well, I had this senior job. I saw things everywhere. I'm sick and tired of seeing this. And I always see it from the same people who are maximally conspiratorial.

Andrew Colvett (19:51)

Here's what I want everybody to know. Shortly after Tyler Robinson's arrest, the prosecutors released a probable cause affidavit detailing the evidence gathered immediately after Charlie's assassination. The evidence presented at that time was overwhelming, but people also need to remember this. In the months that have followed. We know the investigation has continued. More details will come out in May when the assassin has a probable cause hearing. And we are certain there will be even more evidence submitted against Tyler Robinson by the state. And that's a. So the frustration here, Michael, is that we have this vacuum, this void that's been created where the investigation is kind of still ongoing. They're still gathering it, getting it presentable for this May probable cause hearing. But the Internet never stops. And Joe Kent resigned when he did, and now he's doing this PR tour. And it really does. And I want to get this through the audience's head. This really does have a potential to not only taint a jury pool, but. But to undermine the very prosecution of Tyler Robinson, who I am 100% convinced pulled the trigger and killed Charlie Kirk. Could you just speak to that?

Michael Shellenberger (21:06)

Yeah, sure. I mean, I think, you know, the first thing that's just worth acknowledging is that, you know, the American people, all of us, have seen, you know, real world conspiracies exposed. And I mean by conspiracies, you know, illegal Secret activity by the government. Russiagate collusion hoax is the most famous. We uncovered a censorship industrial complex whereby government officials working with intelligence community officials or recently departed intelligence community officials pressured social media companies to engage in mass censorship. We saw a cover up of the science of Covid's origins almost certainly in a laboratory in China. So I think Americans are. And that's not even to get into other spectacular potential conspiracies like JFK or uap.

Andrew Colvett (21:55)

We've been on all of that stuff as well. Michael. I'm not. The conspiracy theorists have been proven right about a lot, but that was before you had people that Charlie helped get in these positions in the first place as part of the investigative arm. Anyways, I'm sorry I cut you off, please.

Michael Shellenberger (22:13)

Well, no, I mean, I think that's just important context that my critics call me, accuse me of being a irresponsible conspiracy theorists. So. But I also just think it's important, you know, obviously that you have evidence to allege potential, you know, you know, really strong evidence, especially behind really strong allegations like this one. And I think a lot of times right now, you know, because the social media and podcasting is so powerful that I think, you know, it's fun, it's entertaining. You know, everybody loves a good conspiracy theory and I think that's, you know, I think actually some amount of speculation is necessary. I think you should ask. Asking even outrageous questions is totally appropriate. I think too, I think though, that there are consequences potentially if that starts to affect things like juries, you know, and it starts to, you know, I think the point is that we want to have trust in our institutions. It's not that we want to be in a state of permanent distrust. We need to have. That's why you need a regular changes of government to have a clean house. I have seen no evidence that anybody in this administration would do anything. I mean, this is an administration that's absolutely passionate about Charlie Kirk. I think everybody knows that the reaction from the Trump administration, the White House, all the federal agencies was of just shock and horror and outrageous. So I just don't see how you, how any broader conspiracy could be either carried out or, or covered up in the ways that I think Joken is suggesting here. And, and so, you know, like, like, you know, if there, there's just really not, there's just not anything here that would suggest that there's a cover up going on that I'm seeing or that anybody else was involved than, you know, than Tyler Robinson, you know, and I think Ken, at One point, sort of, or a couple points, maybe in the interview, sort of agreed that you don't need anybody else. I mean, Tyler Robinson, you know, it appears from the evidence has been released so far, there's ample motive and a lot of evidence that he did it. So I don't. I just don't see the need to add something else to it. And again, you would think, well, maybe it's just for fun and, you know, just, you know, podcasting entertainment, but in this case, I think the consequences could be quite serious.

Andrew Colvett (24:42)

Yeah. And that's what I think we're all terrified of. And I just want to make a point. Here I am for asking questions. This is why I shared the group chat with Joe Kent in the first place. I'm not afraid of the answer to those questions. If Israel had a hand in killing Charlie, I want to know. I wanted to know. What I am telling you is that we've had six months plus since that time to track down all those leads, none of which have been corroborated, none of which have actionable evidence behind, none of which have been presented in any way, shape or form to suggest there was probable that there's any evidence, overwhelming

Blake Neff (25:19)

evidence, very rapidly accumulated at zero evidence.

Andrew Colvett (25:22)

That's my point.

Blake Neff (25:22)

Currently facing trial.

Andrew Colvett (25:23)

Yeah. I am willing to ask the hard questions. We want the truth. But when there's no evidence and there's no facts that would back up those questions, then you have to say, okay, moving on. All right, you couldn't corroborate it. Okay. So I'm not anti asking questions. I'm not anti conspiracy theories. I'm, I'm open to it all. Okay. But you have to have facts. And the recklessness with which these accusations are being thrown out now has real world implications. And I just. It's this brain rot, Michael, that's driving me insane being on the other side of it. I will never look at a conspiracy theory the same way, having been on this side of it, because people make jumps to conclude, they jump to conclusions, they connect disparate pieces of evidence, and they connect them in ways that don't make any sense. So, anyways, I guess final minute to you, Michael. Where does this leave us and what do you expect to happen next?

Michael Shellenberger (26:15)

Yeah, I mean, for me, having worked on this for now, a couple days, and really it's been heavy focus on it, I kind of walk away, just reminded that these restrictions on what intelligence agencies can do are really good and important and we wouldn't want to reduce those protections. I'm not Seeing evidence of a wider conspiracy. I don't think anyone's presented evidence of that. I am very worried about this affecting the trial. I think most people, when they think about what's occurred now, would share that concern. And, you know, I think that people sometimes want to have a bigger meaning for the Charlie Kirk assassination. Like it couldn't just be one guy. I mean, because the assassination is just. Is one of the, you know, most significant political assassinations in American history. And so to kind of go, it was just a guy, you know, you know, that had a. Maybe a furry fetish and a trans identified boyfriend. I think for a lot of people that might feel like not big enough or something or significant enough, and I would say it is big enough. What's. I mean, Charlie Kirk's whole legacy is tied up with him not going along with the idea that he needed to agree with a belief that you could change your sex or that men could become women.

Andrew Colvett (27:32)

It's a powerful insight. Michael, we gotta wrap it up. That's a powerful insight. It's not psychologically satisfying enough. The truth for some people, but the truth has to be the truth at some point. Thank you, Michael, for joining us on short notice.

Michael Shellenberger (27:44)

Thanks for having me.

Blake Neff (27:47)

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 strongcell. 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. StrongCell 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?

Charlie Kirk (28:20)

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.

Blake Neff (28:33)

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, and 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 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.

Charlie Kirk (30:04)

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.

Andrew Colvett (30:22)

You, Blake and Jack Posobic did a pick up the mic event. We did, we did, we did. How'd it go?

Blake Neff (30:29)

I was super nervous beforehand and once it began.

Andrew Colvett (30:32)

I love that about you that you're willing to admit that you were nervous.

Blake Neff (30:34)

You know, that's actually what. We talked. We spoke for a few minutes and I just talked, you know, I know. Obviously Charlie is far more memorable remembered, looked up to than I am. So I talked about the process that went into it. It's a conversation I had with Brian on our team once where he said one of the most common questions Charlie we get is, Charlie, how can I be like you? And Brian would say they don't actually want to be like him because it's a ton of work. Because Charlie had to be so disciplined with his time in a way that most people just cannot manage. He was studying all the time, he was prepping all the time, always. And I told the story, you know, the last conversation I had with him, you know, why is monogamy great? Like, let's get all the talking points.

Andrew Colvett (31:12)

We were, we were.

Blake Neff (31:13)

That was a great.

Andrew Colvett (31:13)

It was we were on that.

Blake Neff (31:15)

It was a great conversation, but it was also. That was daily life for him, always getting those talking points. And that Charlie, he succeeded so much because he failed so much that any debate, he didn't do perfectly any debate. I mean, he lost some debates, and that was always the chance to get better. So we talked about that at the start, which I thought was a very good tribute to him. And then they asked us questions, a lot of different ones, and I finally felt what it was like to be Charlie.

Andrew Colvett (31:42)

And did you get challenged? What kind of questions they asked you?

Blake Neff (31:46)

Man, I didn't join in this one. Jack got a question about the Spanish Civil War, which I'm a big history dork. So I kind of wanted to jump in, but it was aimed at Jack because Jack had talked about it. We got a question about anti Semitism on the right, so. So that was. That was a good one to answer because, let's be real, it is going up. It is increasing. It is something we run into a lot. I think I did an okay answer on that. I think there's a few things I would have added if I could have. If I could revisit it.

Andrew Colvett (32:09)

Faz says one of our producers said Blake hit a home run on the Israel first question.

Blake Neff (32:14)

Oh, it was. It was all right. It was all right.

Andrew Colvett (32:17)

So these are going to be clipped up and put on social. Just like we.

Blake Neff (32:20)

We got a question about global warming that felt like a blast from the past. Like, you don't have a lot of people asking about global warming anymore. It's very 2014 era liberalism.

Andrew Colvett (32:30)

Back when it's funny, you still. You still can't get those clips on Facebook. I think they'll still get. If you. If you don't tow the.

Blake Neff (32:39)

Oh, they're still. It's like. Yeah, it's gonna be a vestigial thing. Like, they, you know, AI will have cooked everyone's brains. They won't know how to change the code to make it. So you can't.

Andrew Colvett (32:49)

Yeah, because it doesn't exist on some of the social media platform.

Blake Neff (32:51)

No, but it actually is very funny. Just you don't run into it that much because they moved on to systemic racism or whatever. But we still have the remnants of it. Like, you still can't get a plastic straw in Tempe, I think.

Andrew Colvett (33:02)

But seriously.

Blake Neff (33:03)

Well, I don't know. I got a paper straw the other day when I was at a restaurant and I found it really annoying.

Andrew Colvett (33:07)

So this was interesting. So we wrapped the show yesterday, and then almost immediately after we're done with it. We get told that there are protesters out front, and I think we have some pictures here, if the team can show them up. So it's this other group. Yeah. So they're outside and they got film crew. And then so Blake. I didn't even see Blake after the show. Like, you were just gone. And then I was like, where did Blake go? And they were like, oh, protesters out front. You gotta go confront them. And I was like, I do. You know, that doesn't seem like security protocol. So I was like, all right. So. But it turns out it's this progressive group that we mentioned were flipping off Charlie's memorial and doing all sorts of deranged things outside of the HQ before that, the day before that, or over the weekend. So I joined Blake out there and then next thing I know, Jack is out there.

Blake Neff (34:00)

It was such a funny conversation because they were mad. I mean, they were posting images of them flipping off a memorial and all of that. And they were mad because they blamed us for getting an event of theirs at ASU canceled. And we go out and they ask us about this and we just go. Speaking truthfully, that wasn't us. We don't have that kind of pull with asu. They in fact quite dislike us. And then it was almost like they hadn't considered that possibility. And they instantly got more further, like, oh, wow. Yeah, that makes sense.

Andrew Colvett (34:29)

Yeah. Because our day event also got disallowed.

Blake Neff (34:33)

I actually was confused. I thought until I hadn't like really been paying close attention. So I thought the event was actually gonna be around noon.

Andrew Colvett (34:39)

So this is true. I came in, I go, what time's your pick up the mic? He's like, he's like, ah, this afternoon I was like, I thought it was a night event and nobody had told Blake.

Blake Neff (34:48)

So they told me. And I hadn't looked close. I'm self conscious. So when they sent me the announcement, I didn't want to look at it because it had my dorky mugshot looking photo.

Andrew Colvett (34:56)

And so I love that you were. I actually love that you were nervous because it shows the reverence that you have for CK and just how many reps he put in in that format. And it is a powerful format because it really is the collision of ideas and there is nothing off limits. And it's. It's mental sparring and you gotta make your point. As a matter of fact, when we went out to confront this left wing group that was taking all these terrible pictures, that was my first thing. They were like, they started with, do you condemn President Trump for what he said about Bob Mueller? And I was like, do you condemn your friend over here for flipping off Charlie's memorial and doing all this other gross crap? And her response was, well, I thought that you guys canceled our event. So I take it back and I'm sorry, I'll delete that post. It's like, even if we did cancel your event, which we didn't, you should not be doing that. You're a grown woman that is giving into this, like, online culture of just being, you know, really gross. And by the way, like, when you've done the reps, the turning points done with all these campuses across the country, maybe. What? Maybe then we'll take you more seriously. Up until now, you guys are just a bunch of trolls. And I don't take you seriously. I don't. Because all you're trying to do is leech off what we're doing. You're trying to draft off what we've done and what we've built, what Charlie built. And so, you know, good luck, I guess, and welcome to university bureaucracy. This is how it works. You win some, you lose some. By the way, this is actually, I

Blake Neff (36:24)

get a kick out of them thinking, like, we would want to shut down a left wing group that would ask questions at our events because very obviously there's a symbiotic relationship there. Like, we want liberals to show up at our events because that's how you get the debate. That's how. That's how you get viral clips. That's how Charlie. Charlie would never want to go to a campus and only get people who agree with him. That would be incredibly lame.

Andrew Colvett (36:46)

Yeah, no, exactly. And by the way, it's like, we don't. First of all, we're not threatened by it. Second of all, I didn't even know who these people were. I mean, I knew kind of a little bit from.

Blake Neff (36:55)

Well, we know the group because at

Andrew Colvett (36:57)

Texas A and M, they tried to counter our event or something.

Blake Neff (37:01)

And that was a great event.

Andrew Colvett (37:01)

And my favorite part about that event was when they tried to counter program us, the sprinklers turned on.

Blake Neff (37:11)

That was probably our doing too.

Andrew Colvett (37:12)

Admittedly.

Blake Neff (37:13)

We probably have more pull at A and M than we do at asc.

Andrew Colvett (37:15)

We probably had the keys to the sprinkler system and we probably. No, that didn't happen. This is what's holding us. Call it in. No, it was like, now pull it. It's the time. Go now. And anyway, so it was kind of a fun little moment, but it Kind of. And there was all this press energy. Like, everybody wanted to see what we were doing at ASU versus the. They got these inquiries, like, did you block their event? I'm like, no, but they would love for you to think that we did. Okay. Like, so it was kind of a nothing burger in the end, but nevertheless fun to get back on campus. Fun to see you guys doing it and honor Charlie that way. So I was proud of you guys and more to come. I think I'm going to do GCU soon, which will be fun here in the Valley. So we'll keep you posted on that and as the clips come up, we'll maybe we'll show some of them on the show. You know, we spend a lot of time on this show talking about culture, about why strong families matter, why values matter, why faith matters. But here's something practical. If you actually want to build a strong family someday, you have to start by meeting someone who shares those same values and convictions. And in today's culture, that's not always easy. A lot of apps are built around casual connections, instant gratification, no long term vision. And that's just not what many of you are looking for. You want something better. That's why I like Upward. Upward is a dating app designed around faith and shared values. People who care about commitment, integrity, marriage and family. You're starting from common ground instead of trying to negotiate your core beliefs three months later into the relationship. That kind of clarity really matters. If faith is central to your life or even if it's something that shaped how you were raised and how you see the world, Upward connects you with people who take that seriously. If you're tired of the confusion and you're ready to date with intention, with marriage and family in mind, download Upward and start building on the right foundation. Because strong relationships don't just happen by accident. They start with shared values. Download the Upward app today.

Michael Shellenberger (39:17)

When you see ICE agents, you know

Andrew Colvett (39:19)

being deployed, what goes through your mind?

Tom Homan (39:23)

I like it. I mean, I think Trump's going to hell at all. I like it.

Michael Shellenberger (39:27)

Most of the Travelers we spoke with say while it's disappointing, the current shutdown is having a negative impact on TSA staff.

Andrew Colvett (39:33)

They're pleased to see ICE agents stepping in. They're protecting us.

Tom Homan (39:36)

Yeah. Doing a good job.

Andrew Colvett (39:39)

Well, people love their ICE agents at the airports. Lines wait times are dropping like crazy.

Blake Neff (39:45)

We have like the thin blue line, the thin red line. Is this like the thin security line? Thin cold line?

Andrew Colvett (39:51)

Yeah. I don't know. Here to help us break this down is none other than borders. Art. Tom Homan, National Treasurer, thank you, sir, for joining us and making the time. What can you tell us about what we're seeing, ICE agents at our airports?

Tom Homan (40:07)

I think President Trump made a brilliant move. He called me late Saturday night with this idea and I liked it. I mean, all these agents are being paid. TSA agents aren't. Lines are backing up and this heightened security posture we're in right now because what's going on in the world, we need to secure the airports, we need to secure the airways and we need to get American people through those lines, I mean, especially now during spring break and Easter and so forth. So I thought it was a great idea. And so I've worked very closely with the ICE director and the acting administrator at TSA. We put that plan together in less than 24 hours and now we're sitting in about 16 airports now. There'll be a few more added. It's going to constantly be changing, but we're there filling jobs that's going to release more TSA agents to work right in those security lines, especially the X ray machines and, you know, secondary security where they're very well trained to do. We're going to take people that are doing other security jobs and we're going to fill those gaps so they can release those highly trained TSA officials to help with the lines, maybe open up more lines because we got more people looking at X ray monitors. So it's a great idea. And I think the lines are going down quickly. And I think President Trump not only made airports more secure, more safe, he's moving the traveling public through quicker.

Andrew Colvett (41:38)

I love it. Well, I mean, I put up a few posts on X yesterday and they went viral because everybody loves this idea. Mr. Borders are but it does raise this other thing that's getting the Democrats all freaked out. And we'll just have President Trump in his own words describe it. SOT3 will we see arrest or illegal

Tom Homan (41:56)

migrant arrests at airports? Sir, will we see ICE arresting illegal migrants at airports? That's why the Democrats are going crazy, because they've allowed by what they did and the holdout we put ice, who are a very high level, I mean, they really are a high level group of people and they love it because they're able to now arrest illegals as they come into the country. That's very fertile territory, but that's not why they're there. They're really there to help.

Andrew Colvett (42:28)

All right, so it's very fertile. Terror. I've thought about this a lot. Mr. Borders are that the airports are where so much of this is happening. So it makes sense to have ICE agents there. Explain how that will work. Will they be processing somebody through the security line and then they'll be like, oh, you're actually an illegal immigrant and you're now going to be removed from the country.

Tom Homan (42:48)

Well, look, you know, CBP and I have always had a presence at the airports, not a big presence because we do a lot of human trafficking investigations, smuggling investigations, bulk cash smuggling. So we have a presence there. CBP also has a presence there because they're the ones that screen everybody coming into the country from other nations. But look, our number one mission, as the president said, is support TSA and move those lines quicker and enhance security. However, the instructions I gave to ICE was they're going to enforce immigration law. Also, if they see criminal activity, they're going to take action. There's a lot of people say, well, you should just help TSA with a security posture and not enforce immigration law. I'm not going to do that. We're going to enforce immigration law. I'm not going to ask any ISIL officer to ignore the oath they took and unforced immigration law. So you will see immigration arrest. So they got two missions. One, support TSA to enforce the law.

Andrew Colvett (43:55)

Yeah, well, I think that makes all the sense in the world. Yeah, go ahead.

Blake Neff (43:59)

Well, I'm just, I first of all, I want to tout I was reading actually we were doing an ASU event yesterday and I was studying up for it and I saw that the overall pace of ICE arrests per day has doubled since last spring. So congratulations for that. But the rational follow up of course is how much will let's say this airport strategy of the Democrats can keeps going. Is there a risk that this will significantly slow down those arrests? Like could Democrats embrace this as a way to hamper immigration enforcement by diverting so many agents?

Tom Homan (44:29)

Look, will it have an effect on arrest? It'll have a small effect on arrest, of course, because more people, Paul, the fields at the airport. But look, the men and women at tsa, they're not being paid. This is the third time in the past year they've suffered. So bottom line is the Democrats up on the Hill are punishing tsa, Coast Guard, cisa, Cybersecurity, fema. They're punishing these government employees by not paying them because they're mad about immigration enforcement. And you know, bottom line is I've been meeting on the Hill, you know, having discussions, but bottom line. But we're not going to give up ICE authorities. We're not going to legislate or codify changes in policy. Because what I've explained from day one to people that are the negotiating table policy has not changed. The same policy we're using now was there with Clinton, Obama and Bush 1 and Bush 2. I've been doing this a long time. It's not about policies. It's about execution. And, you know, as I said, it all started up in Minnesota. And I said, look, Minnesota, it wasn't perfect. There were changes need to be made. And we made those changes. Those changes are in place now. So I find it shocking to any member of Congress, I don't care what party you're in, does not want to open up the government, does not want to fund the Department of Homeland Security that keeps this nation safe. Especially again, this elevated threat posture. Everybody in DHS should be working, working hard. So we need to get the government back open. The president wants the government back open. And we'll get it back open. But we're not going to surrender immigration authority. We're not going to do that. That's off the table. Mask off the table. I mean, we're going to do our jobs and we'll keep our officers safe.

Andrew Colvett (46:22)

Okay, well, that's good to hear. Mass off the table. We've got a clip here. It's too long. Hakeem Jeffries, though, says that we're not going to fund dhs. Democrats are not going to fund DHS unless Democrats are assured that ICE will not monitor polling places. What's your reaction to that, sir?

Tom Homan (46:41)

Are illegal aliens voting? I mean, bottom line is, what are they afraid of? And they say illegal aliens don't vote. But look, part of GSA's job is secure elections. And I'm not going to say what our plan is going forward, but if only US Citizens can vote, I don't see the issue what they're concerned about. They ought to be concerned about the safety and security of this nation. And why is the Department of Homeland Security not funded? That's what they need to explain. And look, they can get angry at ICE all they want. We gotta remember, they set the stage right. They baked this pie right. Four years of open borders, four years of no immigration enforcement. We had historic illegal immigration on the southern border. They knew it. And the members of Congress stood silent. They're complicit. They didn't do anything to Secretary Mayorkas when he said under oath, the border secure. So they're to blame for this. And what ISIS is simply doing is responding to four years of open borders and historic illegal immigration on the border that brought millions upon millions of people to the border and released the United States. That requires an historic deportation operation. It's just simple math. So they got to remember, why are we in this position? Why is hiring more people? Why was President Trump elected to be the President of the United States and put in the Oval Office to secure the border and enforce immigration law? That's what we're doing. And they set the stage for the open border for four years. They can't, they can't forget that.

Andrew Colvett (48:14)

Yeah. Amen to that. So you have a new as of yesterday, Senator Mark Wayne Mullen is now secretary. MARK WAYNE mullen, DHS Secretary, what do you expect? Any changes during his tenure? Have you spoken directly with him? What can we expect as the American people?

Tom Homan (48:33)

I speak to Mark Wayne Mullen every day, sometimes several times a day, ever since President Trump announced him as the nominee. I'll be with him today when he gets sworn in. I mean, I've said it 100 times since he's been nominated. I think he's the right guy at the right time and the right job. He understands our challenges. He understands, you know, as a member of Congress, he understands what Congress is upset about and what false narrative they're pushing and how we can, you know, work across the aisle. And I think it's a game changer, and I'm looking forward to working with him. And again, we have a close relationship. And even though he wasn't a secretary yet, I read him in on the operation and what we're doing at the airport speak because I want him to hit the ground running. And my office and many others has offered him any resources he need to hit the ground running. On day one. He's already started. I mean, he's already engaged. He may not be the second. He might not be sworn in yet. He's already being read in on things he needs to be read in on. So he hit the ground running the minute he's sworn in?

Andrew Colvett (49:46)

Yeah. It's for people who are curious. There was only one Republican that voted against that was Rand Paul. Wasn't necessarily surprised after.

Blake Neff (49:54)

Seems pretty personal.

Andrew Colvett (49:55)

Yeah, seems like there's some beef there. But then two Democrats, Fetterman and then a senator from New Mexico. I forget his his name, but, you

Tom Homan (50:04)

know, not only that, but, you know, a lot of Democrats I've talked to, you know, a handful I know he's talked to many more. They want to vote for him. But it's election year. But I think there are a lot more Democrats to support him. That's known. And look, he's going to prove to him. He's going to prove to him he's the right guy. And I think, give him a few months. I think he's going to press this country with his drive to maintain the most secure border in the nation. At the same time, enforce immigration law in a smart, effective way. And look, FEMA needs some attention. TSA needs attention, Secret Service needs attention. All these things that he can wrap his arms around. And he's got a talented staff. Look, Mark Wayne Mullen has told me, you got career officials at ice, been there for decades. You got career officials at cbp, Border Patrol. They've been there for decades. He's going to count on these career officials who've done this for decades to do their job. And I think that's the smart way to go about it. Let the people who've done this for decades who know, look, for instance, I have a close relationship with them. I worked for six presidents on immigration. I've seen hundreds of policies come and go. I know what worked, I know what didn't. And the same thing with CBP and ICE and these other agencies. Count on these career officials who've been on both sides, who've seen successes versus failures, count on them and their knowledge. And it's a winning game, winning formula.

Andrew Colvett (51:36)

I wanted to. You were talking about how Mark Wayne Mullen, Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen, can be effective in this role. I said and I defended you publicly on this. What you did in Minneapolis was an absolute masterstroke. You got cooperation at the local prisons and the county jails. Explain what you did there and how that can be a model of working with blue, these blue jurisdictions, these sanctuary cities across the country.

Tom Homan (52:03)

Well, look, we know that we have a problem, sanctuary cities, because we know they're releasing public safety threats back into the community. They're releasing public safety threats back into the public, which I think just plain stupid. So when we got to Minnesota, I met with the governor and the attorney general and mayors about cooperation. I explained to them more agents in jail means less agents in the street. Because, you know, we can arrest a criminal illegal alien, the safety and security of a jail, where it's safer for the alien, safer for the officer, certainly safer for the community. But when they release him to the street, we gotta send a whole team to go look for him because officer safety concerns. And in Minneapolis, things are out of control. So not only did we send a team to go look, to arrest a bad guy, then we had to send an additional team as backup because of the chaos that was going on, the threats against ICE officers. So what one officer could have done in the jail or two, now we got 14, 15 guys out there in the street for that one guy. And when you got, you know, 20 different teams out, you're talking about hundreds of people out, the rest a few people. So I explained, and I understand that that raises fear in the community that you have a bunch of ICE officers out there in tactical gear to arrest a bad guy. I said, you want those? Want that vision and go away? Then let us send a damn jail. And we got unprecedented cooperation. So it was a win. But we also got to remember that we're out there enforcing immigration law. As President Trump said, we got to prioritize public safety threats and national security threats. We got almost 700,000 illegal aliens and criminals that are walking the streets of this country. We got to get the words first. And I think that's smart way of doing business. It's not less enforcement, it's smarter enforcement. We got a criminal here and non criminal here. Who are you going to arrest first? Who is the biggest threat to our community? Not the criminal is. But as I said in day one, if you're in the country legally, you're not off the table. We're going to find you, we're going to deport you. It's just a matter of smart enforcement, targeted enforcement. When we leave the building every morning, we know who we're going to look for. We know a lot about his criminal history and his immigration history. Pretty much got a pretty good idea where he lives, where he works, and that's the way they do operations. It's safer for the agents, safer for the communities. Then that's where we're going to go move forward. As President Trump committed to on day one, prioritizing the worst first again, doesn't mean amnesty, doesn't mean if you're in the country or legally, you didn't commit another crime, you're off the table. That's not what it means. It's about smarter enforcement.

Andrew Colvett (54:36)

Blake, I know we have an audience question.

Blake Neff (54:38)

Yes, we have. I think I've told you about this in private, Tom, but I wanted to get it on the air. We have a viewer who emails us very often and he asks if you can say publicly to announce to all of America confidently that any illegal aliens who try to vote in the coming elections will be caught and will be

Tom Homan (54:58)

deported after we prosecute them. I mean, It's a crime to vote illegally in the United States. So we're going to take it seriously. You want to go to prison? Try it. But after we prosecute you, you will be deported. Absolutely. No, the President has made that clear. And that's why. Look, that's why Congress needs to pass Save America. I don't know why anybody wouldn't require identification to vote. I pick up tickets that will call to go to sporting event. I got to show id. I go pick up my dry cleaning. I show id. So why wouldn't you want to show ID to take advantage of the most significant thing this country has, your ability to vote for your next leader. I mean, it's a sacred. It's a sacred ability, and we ought to keep rules wrapped around it. If you're not a citizen, don't vote. If you do vote, we're coming for you.

Andrew Colvett (55:49)

How does that work? When you prosecute an illegal alien that has attempted to vote, do we throw them in prison or do we deport them once they're convicted?

Tom Homan (55:59)

No, they're going to do prison time first. Then we'd be waiting at the door and it gets released and we'll send them home.

Andrew Colvett (56:04)

Got it? Yeah. I'm going to play a clip here from Gavin Newsom and I'll have you respond quickly here. SOT 6. It's self evident, it's suboptimal advice do the work at TSA when in fact it's ice and the conditions that have been perpetuated on the streets of America. What often is described as secret police that took an oath of office not

Tom Homan (56:32)

to the Constitution, but to Donald Trump.

Andrew Colvett (56:34)

The whole thing is rather reverse and

Tom Homan (56:36)

I don't know how it ends.

Andrew Colvett (56:38)

Well, I'm not suggesting it's going to end badly, but he of this administration to negotiate an agreement with Democrats to address the vast majority of Americans concern about how ICE is currently being deployed and utilized.

Tom Homan (56:56)

I just wish the President would take responsibility.

Andrew Colvett (56:59)

So this is him playing off a narrative from the left where somehow ICE agents at airports or whatever this is secret police. They're going to. There were some senators that were saying they were going to shoot people in the, in the airports. So we end where we begin. Tom, your reaction to this narrative that they're trying to build.

Tom Homan (57:16)

The same people who push this negative narrative against ICE agents are the same ones that want us to take the masks off. They're a reason we're wearing the masks. Their hateful rhetoric is convinced that small percentage of people who are already nuts to take, you know, violent acts against police officers. So, you know, if their hapo rhetoric doesn't decrease, threats will continue to rise, assaults will continue to rise. Puts our officers at great danger, and it gives us more reason to try to protect themselves and their families. So, you know, and I'll say this, Democrats, members of Congress can argue and complain all they want. We're enforcing laws they enacted. If they don't like it, change the law. If they want to call Nazis for enforcing the law that they wrote, what's that make them? They created the law. So we're going to keep enforcing laws as mandated by Congress. That's appropriated funding to do this. That's exactly what we're going to do. The American people have spoken. They put Donald Trump in the Oval Office to enforce immigration law and secure the border. We got the most secure border in the history of this nation and we're doing record number of arrest, deportations, and it's not going to stop.

Andrew Colvett (58:24)

And Mark Wayne Mullen is the new secretary of dhs. Commas not dramas. I believe that that is our future. Let's wrap this man in bubble wrap. National hero and treasure. Borders are Tom Homan. Thank you, sir. We'll see you soon.

Tom Homan (58:37)

Thanks for having me.

Andrew Colvett (58:40)

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. 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. Why Refi can help. Just go to yrefi.com that's the letter Y. Then refi.com and remember why Refi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to yrefi.com and tell them your friend Andrew sent you. All right, here we go. Without further ado, we have Addison Markurt and Danielle Cozetto. Danielle is the ASU chapter chair. She runs their social, right, their social account, the X account, all this stuff. And Addison is the ASU chapter vice president. So welcome. Welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.

Danielle Cozetto (59:59)

Thank you for having us.

Andrew Colvett (60:00)

All right, so the real most important question is, who did better yesterday, Jack Posovic or Blake Neff?

Danielle Cozetto (60:07)

Jack.

Andrew Colvett (60:08)

Oh,

Blake Neff (60:12)

can I just turn around so that you can stab me in the back?

Michael Shellenberger (60:14)

Yeah.

Andrew Colvett (60:15)

I mean, Jack is not here. You had an easy layup, but that's fine. I appreciate the candor. All right, so, yeah. So tell us, what was it like kind of getting back into the event world? Pick up the mic, having it on your chapter yesterday?

Addison Markurt (60:29)

Oh, it was awesome. We. It was very expedited, so it was fun to see all of the hard work put into it, and it was definitely hard to flyer and get it advertised, but I think we had a good turnout, and it was really great having Blake and Jack, so it was awesome.

Andrew Colvett (60:47)

Yeah, it's an important, like, muscle memory for chapters to have. It's like, get out and flyer. Get out and do the thing, table, announce the event. What was the reaction from students?

Danielle Cozetto (60:57)

I think it was well received, and I think students appreciated the fact that they could go up to the mic and, you know, if they disagreed, that's okay. Being able to hear both sides of the conversation, which is, I think, the number one thing that Charlie prioritized.

Andrew Colvett (61:10)

Yeah. So what has it been like in the aftermath of when we lost Charlie? What's it been like for your chapter?

Addison Markurt (61:17)

The chapter has grown exponentially. It's been so there's light at the end of the tunnel.

Andrew Colvett (61:23)

Silver lining.

Addison Markurt (61:24)

Yeah, silver lining to everything. It's been awesome seeing everyone who didn't necessarily think that they wanted to get involved in politics until obviously seeing how important it is to be involved politically and talking to your peers, getting involved on campus, because they didn't see that before. They didn't think they needed the part to be a part of Turning Point because they were just like, oh, like, it'll go how it goes. But now they actually see a reason to, you know, step up and make their opinions heard.

Andrew Colvett (61:58)

Same question to you.

Danielle Cozetto (61:59)

When Charlie died, I think it really just put us spark under our butts. I know. I got involved with Turning Point after Charlie was assassinated. Yeah. And just seeing how people have come together after that, it just makes our voices stronger.

Andrew Colvett (62:14)

Blake, I have lots of questions, but, you know, you're the one who went and spent time with them yesterday.

Blake Neff (62:20)

I suppose. I suppose it's. Do you see any. What do they send in the wake of Charlie's loss? Is there something that particularly appeals to him about his legacy? Do you see them leaning more towards the faith side of things? Maybe in the past, or do they see him as a guy to look towards in terms of debate, argument, politics? Just, I don't know. I'm trying to think of how young people look to Charlie now that he's no longer with us.

Danielle Cozetto (62:48)

I can speak for myself and I think that my thoughts on activism have certainly come up. It makes me just want to get more involved with knocking on doors, getting people to sign up for being a PC, etc, etc, and I think maybe for more people on asu, just it sparks us to have even more open debates, hearing clearly what the other side has to say.

Addison Markurt (63:10)

I think he remains controversial. Definitely. People who are part of the chapter obviously see him as a great debater and it doesn't matter what they thought of him before, they still appreciate what he's done for the youth and making our voices heard on like the liberal side of things. They. They don't like him still. I don't think they hate him as much to the extent that maybe they did before because they see that.

Tom Homan (63:38)

Do you.

Blake Neff (63:38)

Do you run. It has to be asked. Do you run into people? Will people ever ridicule you about Charlie being dead?

Andrew Colvett (63:45)

What will they do?

Danielle Cozetto (63:47)

They don't stop.

Addison Markurt (63:48)

Yeah, they say like crazy things and they don't have a conversation. Like when you're tabling. Yes, when we're tabling, they'll walk past us and say something diabolical and it's very rude.

Blake Neff (64:00)

I heard last night that apparently someone showed up at a meeting at, I think when Erica showed up at the chapter and they made some sort of joke about Charlie being dead or something. And what happened with that?

Addison Markurt (64:13)

Oh, well, he got put in his place for sure.

Blake Neff (64:16)

That's good.

Addison Markurt (64:16)

I don't think he met any malintent with that comment. He didn't know Erica was there. I'm sure he would have held his tongue a little bit more. I'd hope so if he knew because he's a great guy. He was just trying to be funny.

Blake Neff (64:28)

Oh dear.

Andrew Colvett (64:29)

Well, that's not a funny thing to joke about, by the way. That's what I told the. Whatever, the progressive group that's trying to troll and draft off Turning Point. I just said, don't disrespect my dead friend and don't post pictures on social media. It's not cool, it's not funny. I don't care what Trump says. Yeah, okay. He didn't. They made this whole point about Bob Mueller and who's that other guy? The actor, Rob Reiner. And I was just like, so what if you don't like it when he does it, why are you doing it to us? Why are you doing that to Charlie? Anyway, so I want to talk about some of the issues. We've only got two and a half minutes in this segment. We have a whole nother segment. Iran. What are even Trump supporting? Students. Students, you know, voted for Trump. What are they feeling about the Iran war?

Danielle Cozetto (65:19)

I think that mostly they're saying, you know, Trump said no new wars. Now we're in a war. Talking about prices going up, especially gas. I don't know if you want to add on that.

Blake Neff (65:30)

Addie, wait a minute. Do students at ASU still drive or.

Addison Markurt (65:33)

Yeah.

Blake Neff (65:34)

Oh, yes.

Addison Markurt (65:34)

Yeah, of course.

Andrew Colvett (65:35)

All right.

Blake Neff (65:36)

Okay. You guys are living large. I didn't have a car in college.

Danielle Cozetto (65:39)

I don't either.

Addison Markurt (65:39)

They're mixed. People who voted for Trump are either in support of him or they're totally against it, because, like Danny said, no new wars. That's one of the primary reasons. At least I voted for him, and a lot of of the people in the chapter voted for him, and we don't want to lose American lives.

Andrew Colvett (65:58)

So does this change your opinion of the President?

Addison Markurt (66:01)

My opinion of the president hasn't really changed all that much. I obviously am not in full support for everything that he does, and I didn't want any new wars. I don't think interference in the Middle east is in America's best interests. So they're the same.

Andrew Colvett (66:22)

So you still support the president, but you don't support this particular war?

Addison Markurt (66:26)

That's correct.

Andrew Colvett (66:27)

Okay, so when you hear people talking about, oh, they've been a threat to the United States for 47 years, the nuclear threat, what was that island, the Diego. Diego Garcia island, when you see that they actually have the ability to shoot missiles extraordinarily far, I think that was like, 2,000 miles away. Does any of that change the way you think about it? Is it still just like, hey, it's thousands of miles away? We want a nation build here at home?

Addison Markurt (66:53)

Well, like you said, we've been saying Iran has been building a nuke for 47 years, and they just don't have one. So I don't really see them as well.

Andrew Colvett (67:03)

When you see Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff say, we sat with them and they said they have enough nuclear material to build 11 nukes, that those kind of things don't change your calculus. I'm not giving. I'm not trying to tell you right or wrong. I'm just wondering. I'm trying to get inside your Psyche. Like what? What works, what is persuasive, what's not?

Addison Markurt (67:19)

Well, I think the military in the Operation Epic Fury, they've been targeting those facilities and they have hit them. We've decimated their nuclear capacity from what I have seen.

Danielle Cozetto (67:30)

Can I just add something? I actually disagree. I think that they're a threat to our national security and I think that what Trump is doing is a broader part of trying to limit long term threats.

Andrew Colvett (67:42)

Fair enough. Folks, let me tell you something straight up. I'm extremely picky about what I put in my body and what companies we support here. Blackout Coffee checks every single box. This is a family run American company roasting fresh coffee in the usa built by people who believe in hard work, freedom and America. No global corporations, no fake activism, no lectures, just darn good coffee made by Americans for Americans. This is coffee that actually stands for something and I drink it every day right here on the show from morning reaper and brutal awakening to 1776 dark roast and their two a medium roast. They've got something for everyone. They even have instant coffee. Real blackout coffee with no machine, no mess, just add water, stir and you're ready to roll. Go to blackoutcoffee.com Charlie and use code Charlie for 20% off your first order. That's blackoutcoffee.com Charlie blackoutcoffee.com Charlie and for an even better deal, sign up for blackout Coffee subscriptions, save money, get free shipping and earn free coffee through their rewards program just for drinking what you already love. Your coffee shows up fresh on schedule and you never run out.

Charlie Kirk (68:53)

That's blackout coffee.com Charlie. Check it out. Promo code Charlie.

Andrew Colvett (68:59)

So you're saying I'm not persuaded by these and let's just call them talking points. They may be true or they may be. Some of them may not be true. But you've heard this like 47 years. This is a war that's been going on or it's a problem that's been left to fester. So you're not persuaded by those. You, it sounds like are more persuaded. What do you think about your peers though if you had to take a snapshot of the turning point chapter. A lot of conservative young people. Is it 50? 50, 70, 30.

Addison Markurt (69:32)

I would say it's 20. 80. 80% being not against it. Against, yeah.

Andrew Colvett (69:38)

Would you agree with that? Okay, yeah. I mean that's. Listen, there's no right or wrong answers here. I just want to know the truth. I want to get inside the brain of the Gen Z college student. So I don't know if you have a follow up on that specifically on Iran, but it's fertile ground, obviously. What do you want to see happen?

Blake Neff (69:54)

Yeah, I mean, I would also just, I'd be interested in not just the war, but like the bigger picture.

Andrew Colvett (69:59)

Well, yeah, yeah, yeah, but we've got a minute and 50 seconds.

Blake Neff (70:02)

Fair enough, Fair enough.

Andrew Colvett (70:03)

So the point is, what would you like to see happen? I mean, at this point, we're in it. Do you just. Is it, is it like the goal is to get out as quickly as possible? That would be a win. I mean, is there any salvaging this? Do you think that, do you think that you said 80 or against? Do you think those 80% are still going to vote for President Trump in the midterm or the Republicans in the midterms or.

Addison Markurt (70:26)

Yes, I still think they vote for Trump in the midterms. However, I think the end goal would be regime change, which I'm totally against. I mean, Iran, when they experienced our interference with their regime implementing the Shah, they overthrew it. So I don't think the United States

Andrew Colvett (70:46)

has very much a good track record in this.

Addison Markurt (70:49)

Good track record. Yeah, exactly. And I would say the same for

Andrew Colvett (70:53)

my peers and maybe take that same question. But outside of Turning Point, you know, a lot of people voted for President Trump for the first time. Maybe you were one of them in 2024. I don't know if you were old enough yet. But do you feel like he's lost a bunch of people that are never going to vote Republican now or do you think it's salvageable?

Danielle Cozetto (71:13)

I don't know about a bunch of people. I would say definitely the higher propensity to Republicans will probably be voting for him again. Maybe the lower propensity Republicans that maybe this was their first time voting Republican or they tend to lean more moderate. I think maybe he might have lost some of their votes.

Andrew Colvett (71:27)

Got it. All right, well, I think this is. Listen, again, no right or wrong answers. We just want to hear what you really think. Okay. This is not toe the party line hour. So let's take this broader. What would you say are the main issues that students are talking about when it comes to politics right now?

Addison Markurt (71:44)

Immigration for sure. That's definitely split up right now. I would say the conservatives are for more mass deportations and liberals are more for, you know, aiding them and helping them. And since they help out our economy. Oh, they should stay here. Is definitely an issue. And then again, affordability, prices are skyrocketed, wages are low.

Danielle Cozetto (72:07)

That's exactly what I was going to say immigration, too. Immigration and affordability.

Andrew Colvett (72:11)

So obviously the turning point chapter wants more of a hardline immigration approach. But what about the larger student body?

Danielle Cozetto (72:20)

I think at asu, I conducted interviews regarding ice. We had a bunch of ICE protests on campus. When was that? Like a month ago, maybe? And it was an overwhelming response of f. Ice. Get them off of our campus, get them out of America. You know, like nobody's, you know, like on stolen land, you know, kind of stuff.

Andrew Colvett (72:40)

Nobody's illegal.

Blake Neff (72:42)

Yeah.

Danielle Cozetto (72:42)

And, yeah, I mean, we conducted maybe 20 interviews that day, and I think we only got two people that were pro ice, so that was really eye opening.

Andrew Colvett (72:52)

So maybe them helping with the TSA lines is this huge new PR blitz where they're going to generate all this goodwill.

Blake Neff (72:59)

I mean, I'd love to believe that. My guess is you actually probably just need to steamroll this sentiment, is my guess.

Andrew Colvett (73:05)

What do you mean?

Blake Neff (73:06)

Well, like, I don't think the kind of person who thinks ICE is a fascist paramilitary because they enforce our laws are going to be won over by anyone working a TSA line. I think they have. They have just kind of have a virus in their brain. I mean, especially if they're also falling for, oh, like the US is on stolen land. Land back. These people, they just want to destroy America. It's unfortunately a very tempting attitude.

Andrew Colvett (73:30)

So what about jobs? When we talk about immigration, H1B, there were some students we'd had on that were super focused on H1B. Do you guys talk about H1B? Maybe stealing college grads jobs here and there?

Addison Markurt (73:42)

It's definitely. There's way too many H1B visas going out that should be going to American citizens first. However, that's not very.

Andrew Colvett (73:51)

It's not super top of mind. What about jobs in general? The AI revolution.

Addison Markurt (73:56)

I did. So one of Jack's talking points was in the agricultural sector, which immigrants work in, replacing them with AI when they're deported because the wages are so low.

Andrew Colvett (74:06)

Like robotics and things.

Addison Markurt (74:08)

Yeah, mechanization, things like that. I totally disagree with that. I do think it should be going to Americans, even if that means corporations and farms have to raise their wages to incentivize people to do that.

Andrew Colvett (74:20)

I think automation's probably coming one way or the other, but maybe there's some. Yeah, I agree with you. In general, if there's jobs that need to be done, give those to Americans, too.

Danielle Cozetto (74:28)

Exactly.

Andrew Colvett (74:28)

Absolutely. Yeah. Go ahead, Blake.

Tom Homan (74:31)

Were you trying to.

Andrew Colvett (74:31)

Okay, so what are the big topics? Maybe they're related to politics. Maybe they're Not. That are top of mind right now. Maybe cultural, musical. Maybe it's dating relationships. Maybe it's apps. What are people. What are kids talking about on college campus right now?

Addison Markurt (74:48)

Well, I think because we're in the political part of campus, we interact with a lot of political people. Politics is obviously one. Donald Trump is a huge one. No one likes him. His executive cabinet, they're all questioning him. Maybe social media as well. That's a big topic. Just like the dating market. They don't like it. Looks maxing.

Andrew Colvett (75:12)

Yeah, looks maxing. Yeah, we talked about that, actually, on our podcast.

Blake Neff (75:14)

ASU is. Well, ASU has that guy. ASU frat leader is some character on the Internet. Now, is that an actual student at ASU or.

Addison Markurt (75:23)

It's not. He's not. He doesn't even go to asu.

Andrew Colvett (75:27)

Of course he doesn't. He's too. He's too busy, like, breaking micro fractions.

Blake Neff (75:31)

No, you're thinking. Now you're thinking of a different. You're thinking of Clavicular. Dust is actually the name of this.

Danielle Cozetto (75:37)

Why do you know this?

Blake Neff (75:38)

You had to do it for the show.

Andrew Colvett (75:41)

We're educating our audience.

Blake Neff (75:42)

We need to know the important issues of the day.

Andrew Colvett (75:44)

So do women in general, because you two are women. If there was a guy here, I'd ask them the same question in reverse. But do women. When you're thinking about dating young men, is it bleak out there? Is it hard to date? Are you guys happy with your choices at asu?

Danielle Cozetto (76:02)

It's looking pretty dim.

Andrew Colvett (76:05)

I feel like a lot of women say that about their local community.

Addison Markurt (76:09)

Oh, I think the guys are great.

Andrew Colvett (76:12)

Okay, so we have a difference of opinion here, I guess. Okay, well, what's your beef? What's your. Your.

Danielle Cozetto (76:18)

I think that they're too focused on lust over love. And also, I'm young. I'm 18. I don't know. Like, I just want.

Andrew Colvett (76:27)

Okay, so you're like a freshman then.

Danielle Cozetto (76:28)

I am a freshman.

Andrew Colvett (76:29)

Okay.

Danielle Cozetto (76:29)

I just want to do my own thing. I don't want to. You know what I mean? I don't need a date right now.

Andrew Colvett (76:32)

You're 18. You're totally right. Right. Approach. What year are you?

Addison Markurt (76:35)

Sophomore. I'm 19.

Andrew Colvett (76:36)

Okay. And you think you. You're.

Addison Markurt (76:38)

You have no issues being surrounded with conservative boys? Like, for most of my week, yeah, they're great. And there's good people in the world. And sure, social media can portray these guys as lustful creatures. Well, innately they are. I think there's more good people in the dating realm than there's not.

Andrew Colvett (76:56)

Do you feel like young men are taking their faith seriously about at least the conservative guys? I mean, there was that NBC poll that pulled all the men and the women, and it was actually the men, they wanted to get married, have families. Like that was their top priorities. And it was the women that put that way down at the bottom of the list. They wanted their careers. They wanted to be boss babes. Do you see that? The boss babe thing, the career drive, Is that still top of the list for women, you think?

Addison Markurt (77:22)

Oh, definitely. It may be dilated because of what I view on social media, but there are some serious men haters and they're definitely doing the right thing, getting a career, going to school, but there's a balance that we have to achieve with that.

Andrew Colvett (77:38)

Yeah. What do you think about the whole career versus family thing? How do you break it down?

Danielle Cozetto (77:41)

I think you can have both. I don't understand why you can't have both. I think a lot of women, maybe it's just on social media like you said, but I feel like they think they can only have one or the other, and that's just not true. You can have both.

Andrew Colvett (77:51)

Well, I've heard it said that you can have both, but not necessarily at the same time.

Danielle Cozetto (77:57)

I don't agree with that.

Andrew Colvett (77:58)

Yeah, well, I mean, you're 18. You haven't done it yet.

Blake Neff (78:01)

I will.

Andrew Colvett (78:01)

I have three kids. And I will tell you that prioritizing family is a way better long term payoff. That's what I would say. Easy for me to say. I go to work every day, so. But. But my wife is. My wife is very in agreement with that. Well, you guys, this has been fascinating and a really good conversation. And so thank you guys for making the time and coming. Thank you for supporting Blake and Jack yesterday at what seems like it was a great event.

Danielle Cozetto (78:25)

It was great.

Andrew Colvett (78:26)

It, yeah. Fantastic. More to come. More to come. Congratulations on the chapter exploding and we'll see you guys soon.

Danielle Cozetto (78:32)

Thank you, guys.

Andrew Colvett (78:34)

God bless you guys.

Blake Neff (78:38)

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