C (4:01)

People who primarily get their news through this program or similar programs, I think they need to understand there is a pretty large chunk of America that is substantially on TikTok, substantially on X, substantially on Instagram, YouTube, where like this is the number one and arguably only story in the entire world, is various things around emanating from Epstein.

B (4:26)

Epstein. It is tapped into and a lot of you in this audience care about it a great deal. I care about it a great deal. And let's just start with brass tacks. If you are a pedophile, I think you should be arrested, held accountable, death penalty, simple as that. If you touched a little child, underage girl, you should be thrown into jail, probably killed, executed, and then into the depths of hell. No problem there. But what we also have to be clear about is we have to follow facts. We have to actually follow what is provable. And one of the reasons that we don't as a country historically just release grand jury testimony is because it's not definitive all the time, it can be conclusory, if it's conclusory. But it could also just be a lot of random facts.

C (5:14)

Grand jury, as it was pointed out, I believe by the President even last summer, a grand jury is the rare situation where you can say stuff that would otherwise be totally defamatory if you uttered it in other contexts, because it's to a grand jury and they can weigh whether it is actually true, likely to be true or not.

B (5:33)

Right.

C (5:34)

And now we just taken that and

B (5:36)

blasted it out and giving it to the Internet to do what the Internet does. Now, some of that can be really good. And we keep asking questions, we keep asking questions that can be really good. But when it turns into like, you know, this government official is eating little babies and whatever cause some rando email came through and it's in these 3 million documents, it can literally cause the Internet brain rot that you're seeing right now. And so this is why I want to address it. Because it's young people, people especially, that are buying into some of the more ridiculous claims. Now, Jeffrey Epstein is evil. He was a pedophile. He was a sexual predator. He was using prostitution and soliciting young women in Palm Beach. President Trump in 2006 called, was one of the first people that called. That's according to the files. The first people that called prominent people to call was President Trump saying, thank you. Finally getting this monster. Yeah, that's a document from the FBI. This 2006, this is before Jeffrey Epstein was even indicted as a sexual predator. Okay, but here's the deal. So the salacious allegations that NPR reported about President Trump are ridiculous. And let me explain why. This is what they left out of the story. The woman who was interviewed for the first time by the FBI in 2019 claimed that she was 13 in 1983 when her mother put her out for an ad to be a babysitter. And that Jeffrey Epstein lured her to her house in South Carolina on the promise of a babysitting job. Here's the problem. Even Jeffrey Epstein's brother Mark, who seems to be a pretty straight shooter on this stuff, he's wants to find out who killed his brother, doesn't believe he committed suicide. So that's his motivation. He's never been accused of any wrongdoing or being involved in his brother's crimes. He said he never had a house in South Carolina, never summered in South Carolina. She says that Epstein then gave her cocaine and alcohol before forcing her into oral sex. It was in a later FBI interview that she even mentioned allegations against President Trump. This is uncredible for many reasons. Epstein never had a residence in South Carolina. Like I said, Epstein was known to never do alcohol or drugs. And every other allegation against him starts with a massage, not drug fueled sexual acts. There was also another bizarre moment when this woman identified Epstein using a photo that she claimed needed a crop in order to not implicate additional individuals. Well, this was a well known photo that was a picture of President Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. So she already had this picture of Trump. And anyways, on top of that, the woman's lawyer who set this whole interview up is Lisa Bloom, who was also responsible for a very bogus Katie Johnson allegation that was laughed out of court in 2016. So NPR doesn't include any of the exculpatory evidence for President Trump. They don't include the fact that he was the first person to speak out against Jeffrey Epstein. Sorry, I can tell you're ready to jump in.

C (8:23)

Well, I think it's helpful to zoom out because it's such a suffocatingly complex story. 3 million documents. It's been going on for years. The big picture you need to know here is the president was vindicated on something very important that he's warned last summer, which is a lot of people are going to just get recklessly accused of things that there's not evidence for. If we go all in on this, which Congress did, and as a result, all these documents have come out. They're filled with a lot of them, completely salacious or mentally ill or anonymous allegations that there's no evidence for. And what this NPR article shows is how this is going to end up, which is they'll try to get the House next fall and they'll try to impeach President Trump on process. They'll have no evidence he committed any real crimes, but they'll say he sabotaged the Epstein files. Time to impeach him. And it's going to be a big joke. If you're like me and are tired of random stuff getting thrown into your supplements like artificial colors and sugars, you probably would love to learn more about phytonutrition. Phytonutrients are the naturally occurring plant nutrients found in whole foods. It's what gives them their color, their taste, their smell. The presence of these three things is a surefire sign that you're getting real phytonutrients Balance of Nature's whole health system supplements are a value bundle that that includes their fruits and veggies and fiber and spice supplements which give you 47 different ingredients of fruits, vegetables, spices and fibers and all of the naturally occurring phytonutrients that come with them every single day. Balance of Nature takes produce through a specialized vacuum cold process that stabilizes the ingredients. They are then powdered and packaged with no binders, no fillers, no flow agents. So whether you've been on the fence for a long time or it's the first time you're even hearing about them, I recommend that you go to balanceofnature.com and order the whole health system supplements as a preferred customer. Today. That's balanceofnature.com

B (10:17)

I gotta keep going. Epstein. So NPR releases a bombshell on the day of the State of the Union. We don't talk about it because we're talking about the State of the Union. Meanwhile, Lefty TikTok, Lefty, Twitter, Blue sky, all this stuff, they're fixated on it. I get into an argument with this prominent TV host as left leaning. Good, good person, good person, but you know, left. So anyways, have this revelation. This is all they care about. Epstein, Epstein, Epstein, Trump, Trump, Trump. So they, they claim, again, just to reiterate that they, that Trump left this stuff out the DOJ on purpose to protect President Trump. Here's what they're not telling you. So let's, let's deal again with the allegations of these, these women that they claim are removed from the Epstein files. One is a woman who called the FBI with a cropped photo of a widely distributed photograph of Epstein and Trump. Okay? A woman who sued the Epstein estate and dismissed her claims in 2021, a woman. And then the third, a woman who claimed she was abused by Trump but refused to cooperate. In other words, total nothing burger from a rag outlet, npr, who's probably just upset that the feds pulled their funding. Okay, so none of this is actually problematic from a legal standpoint for President Trump. Okay. But the allegation is he removed these documents or his DOJ was doing his bidding to protect him. Well, here's the thing. There is massive issues and this is even admitted in the NPR article with the timeline that the DOJ was given under statute from Congress on this transparency act to get out the 3 million documents. Okay? 3 million documents had to get out. And there have been thousands and thousands of documents that were published and then pulled down from the site and then republished a week or two Later. Because what's happening is all of the victims, legal teams and some of the victims directly are saying, hey, you put in personally identifiable information in these documents. You were supposed to redact them. And the DOJ is saying, we're working around the clock in good faith to pull down any documents that identify victims. Okay, so if we made a mistake, we're sorry, we were trying to part. We were trying to, in good faith meet the statute deadline to release these documents. It was impossible to do this perfectly. So we're pulling these documents down and putting them back up. Okay, so here, let me give you a couple examples. One of these interviews that they're saying was removed to protect Trump was removed from the DOJ's public files sometime after initial publication on January 30. So they didn't keep them out originally. They just removed them after the fact and was republished on February 19, according to document metadata. The Justice Department told NPR the only reason any file has been temporarily removed is that it has been flagged by a victim or their counsel for additional review. Multiple FBI interviews with other people refer to the second woman's meeting with Trump while she was a minor and being abused by Epstein. One interview with a fleeting mention of Trump was removed from the public database and subsequently restored last week. So they're even admitting that the FBI is pulling things down, putting it back up when they get complaints about personally identifiable information. This is so. Let me just give you an insight. This is a lawyer of one of the victims that is quoted in the NPR piece. His name's Robert Glassman. He says the whole thing is ridiculous. He told NPR the DOJ was ordered to release information to the public, to be transparent about Epstein and Maxwell's Criminal Enterprise Network. Instead, they released the names of courageous victims who have fought hard for decades to remain anonymous and out of the limelight. Whether the disclosures were inadvertent or not. They had one job to do here, and they didn't do it. A DOJ spokesman replied to this and told NPR that the department is working around the clock to address concerns from victims and handle additional redactions of personally identifiable information that had been flagged. What does this mean? It means that the DOJ is treating this as a work in progress. They released the 3 million documents. People are going through it, combing through it. The Internet's combing through it. There's a lot of crazy stuff in there. Some of it's about bodies buried at the New Mexico ranch that never been corroborated. The FBI looks into It. But you know, the Internet takes that email and assumes that it's true. They don't see that the FBI actually investigated and debunked it. Okay, so, but there's lots of this kind of stuff. Some of it has victim information and they've pulled it down and then they republish it with proper redactions to protect the victims because the lawyers are on their butts to do it. That doesn't mean that they pulled, you know, evidence from the files to protect Donald Trump. It means that they have done this with literally, NPR admits this. Thousands and thousands and thousands of documents from the new release in January 30th. So they're claiming that President Trump has engaged in a legal cover up of allegations against him to protect the presidency. Meanwhile, the DOJ saying we're doing this on a daily basis, thousands upon thousands of documents. That doesn't even mention the fact that NPR left out all the exculpatory evidence for President Trump. Bigger point, this has been turned all upside down. There is one party that released the files, there's one president that released the files, and there's a party that did not. And there's a president who did not. Even though they were sitting on them. President Trump and the Republicans are now getting smeared for releasing the files. I'm not saying they handled it perfectly, but they did release the files. Guess who didn't? The Democrats. Joe Biden. Do you not think for a moment that they would have released those files had there been anything in there that they could have nailed Donald Trump on? Absolutely. They would have, but they chose not to. They sat on them. They didn't do anything. They didn't raise a flag. Ro Khanna didn't get up with a supposed victim who may or may not have been luring underage women in. He's right. After the State of the Union, that's what he did. Stood up alongside a supposed victim who actually has a lot of allegations that she was part of the problem, that she was luring young underage women in and telling them to lie about their age. Ro Khanna didn't make a fuss about this, not until it became a political football that they could weaponize against President Trump. Now, all that being said, this hit job, this hatchet piece, which is going viral on the left, which has gone viral on social media, especially with Gen Z, was intentionally timed to derail the State of the Union. Now, we didn't make a huge mess about it here because we were focused on all the good news from the State of the Union. But it has to be addressed. And here's what else I'll say. Final word. Blake, I don't know if you agree. We do need prosecutions. And we talked about this with Mike Davis, Reid Hoffman, Bill Gates, Les Wexner, anybody else that was conceivably involved in some nefarious activity. And if it can be proved, we are a nation of laws. They have to be provable offenses.

C (17:12)

That's just it. It has to be proven. I don't even with that, I would say Bill Gates. You have a lot of evidence that he was hanging out with this gross guy. It should probably damage his reputation.

B (17:21)

He admitted to having affairs with two Russian girls. If there was prostitution, it's not illegal to have affairs.

C (17:26)

It's embarrassing to have affairs.

B (17:28)

Prostitution is illegal. So if they can get him on that, they should. But if they can't, they can't. Because we are a nation of law and order. We are a nation of rules. You have to be able to prove somebody's guilt. And by the way, that might be frustrating when you want to get the people that you think did bad things, but it's really, really helpful when innocent people are getting accused of wrongdoing and have not done so. So we have to keep these two ideas in our head. We cannot give in to the brain rot that is infesting the Internet space. You have to follow the law. You have to go by the facts, and you have to only pursue that which can be proved. And I listen. I'm all for what the UK is doing to some of their people. They're getting people on process crimes. Fine. Sure, do that. Did anybody leak sensitive information? Get them on that. Did they solicit prostitution? Get them on that. Hi, folks. Andrew Colvett here. I'd like to tell you about my friends over at Y 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. Why Refi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back. We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt. Many of them don't even know how much they owe. Yrefi can Help. Just go to 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. Joining us now is the great senator from the north. That is, of course, Ron Johnson. Wonderful, wonderful Senator Charlie. Loved him. Senator, welcome back to the show. I wanted to just give you the opportunity to respond. There was this NPR bombshell article. All the allegations against President Trump have been debunked and they're uncredible and all this stuff. But more broadly, Senator, what do you want to see take place on the Epstein stuff, the whole saga?

D (19:51)

Well, guys, well, listen, I'd like to get justice for the victims. I want to have those individuals who preyed on these young women held accountable. I think what's really missing from most of the people who are exploring this, and I'm not, I mean, there are plenty of people look into this. I've got other fish to fry, basically, as a chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation. So I'll let the House do this, I'll let the media. But what really is not being explored much is who was Jeffrey Epstein, how did he get his funding? Who is he working for and with? I mean, the more we see these things, you know, his, his involvement with Bill Gates and vaccines and the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum and all those types of things. I mean, this guy was connected to everybody, which is really bizarre. I mean, there aren't many people that made the kind of connections he made. What was that all about? So, again, I'm as curious as anybody, but I'll let other people do the investigation. I'll read the executive summary and reports.

B (20:53)

Well, and reporting suggests that this Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton meeting that's going on, this hearing right now up in New York, they're gonna deny any knowledge of wrongdoing with Jeffrey Epstein. I just think it's a real travesty that President Trump and this DOJ that is releasing the files, I'm not saying they handled it right. They actually handled it terribly at first, the whole binder gate or whatnot. But you don't turn them into the villains for actually releasing the files when the Democrats were sitting on them for years and did nothing. And all of a sudden it's a political football that they're trying to take advantage of. All right, I actually, we wanted to have you on because of this. Great. Unless you want to respond, Senator.

D (21:31)

Well, I just want to say you know, those files were sitting in the Biden Justice Department for how many years?

B (21:36)

Exactly.

D (21:37)

What do I have that they haven't been doctored, that the bad stuff against Democrats hasn't been deleted? So, again, I just have no faith in, you know, what's being produced anyway.

B (21:48)

Such a good point. Such a good point. All right, Senator, you made some news yesterday, and we're going to get to it. But first, I want to play this clip from the State of the Union. I was in the gallery. I saw you down there walking around, shaking hands and doing their thing, and I heard you say you really had to be in the gallery to understand the tension in the room, the dynamic in the room. And I agree. But here's 503, President Trump saying, Pass the Save America Act. 503.

D (22:14)

And perhaps most importantly, I'm asking you to approve the Save America act. To stop illegal aliens and others who are unpermitted persons from voting in our sacred American elections.

B (22:35)

So this is a mandate from President Trump, passed the SAVE Act. And, you know, you've probably seen some of the reports. You know, there's Senator Tillis doing a dog show. I don't know what's going on, but people are upset because this is going on. Meanwhile, we have, like, basically one job the base is demanding from the Senate, and you are now on the side of a talking filibuster. Explain what your thinking is and what do you want to see happen.

D (23:02)

Well, let's first place the blame where it really needs to squarely be on Democrats. I mean, Democrats, one that opened the border, flooded America with millions of people into sanctuary states, sanctuary cities, plus up the census, get more members of Congress. They oppose any measure to secure our elections. In fact, what they're doing is doing everything they can to make it easy to cheat. So, again, the main impediment to Saving America act is Democrats who want to again, not have any control over elections. They're happy to have your legitimate vote as a conservative canceled by one of their fraudulent ones. So they're the main impediment. Okay, now, in terms of our ability to pass, it was slim majorities, both House and the Senate. Yeah, I came out reluctantly agreeing with President Trump that it is the day of the filibuster is over. It's unfortunate Democrats don't respect the rights of the minority. And we. But we know that the next time they're in power, they will end the filibuster. To consolidate their power, they'll turn D.C. puerto Rico into states. They'll pack the Supreme Court, they will pass a national election law to make it easier to cheat. So that's what they're going to do. So we ought to beat them to the punch. But when we do it, we'll do it secure our border, secure elections to provide prosperity for every American Again, our motives are the proper ones for the benefit of the American people. Unfortunately, I have a lot of colleagues in the Republican conference who are deluding themselves thinking, oh, the Democrats aren't really serious. They're not going to nuke the filibuster. Oh yes they will. So we don't have the votes to end this filibuster. So the next best thing is the talking filibuster. That's a long shot as well. But once we're willing to go back to. Because it's basically unlimited debate, unlimited amendments. Unless we're willing to go back to prior to 1986 when Robert Byrne changed the precedent of the Senate, that didn't count offering an amendment as a speech. So I know we've got the two speech rule, but as long as Democrats can go down and offer an infinite number of amendments, split those amendments, we call them clay pigeon amendments, into hundreds of parts, you know, literally they can just drag this thing out as long as they want to. And bringing it to a close is much easier said than done.

B (25:17)

Well, so Senator, Senator, let me finish.

D (25:20)

At a minimum, what John Thune ought to do is bring the Save America act up to the floor and force Democrats to defend day after day after day. And I don't know how long it would last, but make them defend why they oppose something that 80 some percent of the American people support. Secure elections and voter ID.

B (25:39)

Yeah, no, I completely agree with you, Senator, absolutely. Force them to defend the indefensible, this 1986 rule. What would it take to revert that so that every amendment doesn't turn into an endless debate on the floor?

D (25:54)

Well, that would be a 50 vote threshold. When Robert Byrd proposed it, over 90 senators voted for it. So it was overwhelmingly popular to allow an unlimited number of amendments and not count those as a speech, counting against the two speech rule. So again, we could do that with. And that wouldn't be nuclear filibuster. That wouldn't be something unprecedented. That'd actually be following the precedent of the Senate. Robert Byrd changed that precedent. We'd just be going back to the way the Senate operated under the cloture rule, under the filibuster rule for about 100 years.

B (26:27)

Hmm. I mean that seems really pretty obvious. Reports are coming and listen, I understand you have. There's a culture in the Senate that can be really good. I'm not asking you to name names. I'm going to name them. You don't have to agree, sir. Reports are coming out that it's Senator Curtis from Utah, Thom Tillis, probably Mitch McConnell, and, you know, maybe one or two others that are, that are blocking this. So we're probably at like 48, 49 votes to do this. We're short. We need to get to 50, 50 plus one to do this, to make these rules effective in the, in the Senate. Do you feel like any of these holdouts are gettable? Are talks ongoing? Are you guys working the phones? Are you making phone calls to see if we can get them over the top?

D (27:15)

Well, the best way to get them on top is put on the floor and make them vote. Everybody says, you know, we're coming here and we should be willing to take hired votes. Okay, well, put your. Put your votes where your mouth is. You know, put it on the floor. Let the Democrats offer an amendment. It might be something we actually want to pass, but realizing it'd be a poison pill. We defeat or we table amendments all the time. All the time. Even good amendments recently. No, we're going to vote no, because if we put this in here, it changes the bill and it's going to be a poison pill. So we just would bring up any Democrat amendment. We just have a strategy and say, okay, we're not going to. No matter how good the amendment is, no matter how much you'd want to support, we're all gonna vote to table it. So we can actually pass the Save America act, because that's the higher priority.

B (28:02)

Yeah. And just to be clear, I was speaking specifically of changing the rules, maybe back to 1980, pre1986. Seems like we're at like 48, 49 votes to actually institute something. What, like Mike Lee? And now you are suggesting end the. Make it a talking filibuster. I love that, by the way. I love the framing that Mike Lee has put on it, the zombie filibuster. Because Blake makes this point all the time on the show. Congress is like a zombie Congress because we just don't do anything in Congress because this 60 vote threshold, they're used

C (28:33)

to not doing anything. You have senators who. The vast majority of senators have been in a Congress that never is expected to pass anything, never is expected to take the initiative. All they can ever do is pass these big omnibus spending bills because that's really the Only legislation we ever passed.

B (28:52)

Well, or, you know, the, you know, what's the bill? This is the one big beautiful bill. I'm blanking on the name right now.

C (29:00)

That's a big omnibus bill, though, basically.

B (29:02)

Yeah.

D (29:02)

Working Family Tax Cut act now.

B (29:05)

Okay.

D (29:07)

But generally, generally not passing things in Congress is generally a good thing.

B (29:12)

No, for sure.

D (29:13)

So much of the pass is awful. So that's really the beauty of the filibusters. We've been able to block all kinds of awful legislation. And, you know, so again, that's why I'm sympathetic with those who don't want to, you know, end it. But again, you have to recognize the reality has changed. Democrats will end it. They'll turn D.C. and Puerto Rico into states. They'll pack the Supreme Court, they'll pass a national election law that will make it easy to cheat. We have to recognize that reality and we need to beat him to the punch.

B (29:42)

Senator Ron Johnson, you are one of the good ones. You're fighting for the base, for the. For the grassroots, and we thank you for that and we pray you're successful because the SAVE Act, I think it's existential. You gotta do it before the election. That's the whole point. We have to make sure our elections are secure. So God bless you. Thank you for the work you're doing on that and we'll talk to you again soon.

D (30:03)

God bless you guys. Take care.

B (30:07)

Before he ever stepped behind a microphone, Charlie understood something important. Leadership begins with learning. He didn't chase a diploma or a title. He chased truth through Hillsdale College's free online courses. He studied the great works of the classics, the principles of the American founding, and the life changing truths of the Bible. Those ideas didn't just inform him. They shaped his character, strengthened his convictions, and prepared him for the challenges ahead. One of the courses he took was the Genesis Story. Taught by Hillsdale Professor Dr. Justin Jackson. This free online course explores the relationship between God and man, what happens when that relationship is broken, and the path toward reconciliation. It's a real college course, rigorous, thoughtful, and accessible to anyone willing to learn. You can take the very same course completely free. Grow stronger in your faith. Gain clarity about humanity and your place in the world. Prepare yourself for a life with courage and conviction. Visit charlieforhillsdale.com to enroll today. That's charlieforhillsdale.Com Learn deeply. Lead boldly. Carry it forward. We have to talk about. I'm noticing a trend where left wing commentators or politicians are trying to whitewash what happened to Charlie. And it's really bothering me, actually. And so two instances in just the last 24 hours, there was a Democrat, Florida state Rep. Ashley Viola Gantt said his passing was tragic, but he was not. She doesn't even admit he was assassinated. 5:36.

E (31:44)

We want to talk about exercising free speech, let's ball. The First Amendment protects free speech. We don't need this day of remembrance for a man that was mediocre and racist. And I say mediocre at best. When we hear assassination that's typically related to a person in a political position. Charlie Kirk died from gun violence. Okay. Was his passing tragic for those who love him? Absolutely. There is no denying that. But he was not assassinated. And words being accurate matters. It was a death by gun violence that is an issue here in the country. So Charlie Kirk was not someone that children in the state of Florida should be subjected to honoring.

C (32:25)

Oh, my gosh.

B (32:27)

Yeah. Pretty disgusting stuff. So the Florida House passed a bill to designate October 14th his birthday. Charlie Kirk Day of Remembrance. And this shameful disgrace of a state rep has the gall to say he was not assassinated. He didn't die in his sleep. Woman.

C (32:47)

Well, all you should ask. She's trying to do this pedantic point. Well, it's for people in a political position. Okay. Was Martin Luther King assassinated? He didn't hold office.

B (32:56)

Great point.

C (32:56)

Was Malcolm X assassinated?

B (32:58)

Great point.

C (32:58)

He didn't hold an office.

B (32:59)

Oh, but sorry, they're black civil rights leaders, so she probably would support that. Let's just call a spade a spade. They do not want Charlie Kirk, his legacy, to be in the same stratosphere. I'm sorry, woman, it's already done. There are millions and millions of Americans that honor Charlie as a martyr, as an assassinated martyr. Because that's exactly.

C (33:23)

Because that's what he is. They want to downplay, oh, it's just gun violence, because then that obscures what we know to be reality, which is that a person on the left radicalized by rhetoric they heard every day from Democratic lawmakers, from people on social media, went, took a rifle, and murdered Charlie.

B (33:39)

You're getting to the deeper point, and it's exactly right.

C (33:42)

And they'll tell that lie repeatedly so that they can get it into the discourse. Just like they lied about it immediately after to make people think Charlie was shot by someone on the right.

B (33:51)

Yes.

C (33:51)

Just like they love to muddle it in all of these ways so then they can look back five years, 10 years, 50 years later and say, oh, it's a confused, muddled mess.

B (34:00)

Yeah, it's very controversial.

C (34:01)

Controversial?

B (34:02)

No, exactly. It's not controversial. But here's another one. Rep. JONATHAN Jackson. So the memo went out. Rep. JONATHAN Jackson just absolutely disgraced himself. He's a congressman from Illinois543.

F (34:14)

There's a very toxic climate in Washington D.C. the same Washington D.C. that would lower the flag for Charlie Kirk that says the 1964 Civil Rights act was a mistake. How can you say getting rid of biases in race and sex and religion was a mistake? How can you say it was a mistake to fully enfranchise people to be Americans? That was a pivotal piece of legislation. But that's the same speaker and that's what we're dealing with. They have a high tolerance for things that are very indecent and a very low regard for people that have been great Americans.

B (34:52)

This is an ignorant fool. He knows nothing about what Charlie actually believed. Charlie said the intent of the Civil Rights act was noble, but the execution of it was wrong. Why? Why was it wrong? Because it created a bureaucratic leviathan that was inarguably very extra constitutional that has been used, among other things, to justify things like, you know, men and women's locker rooms, men and women's sports. That's why. That's why Charlie had a problem.

C (35:20)

Huge amount of left wing politics is essentially premised on just intentionally not understanding things. Because it's pretty easy to understand what Charlie meant by it because he explained himself over and over again, of course, but that Charlie opposed racial discrimination. And so he said, I don't want racially discriminatory things. And laws that were passed in the 60s and 70s and 80s that were supposedly anti discrimination, instead institutionalized it, mandated it, were used by courts to impose it on everybody. And that's why Charlie fought against them. Because Charlie believed in real equality, the equality that is promised in our Declaration of Independence, in our Constitution. That is what he fought for. That is ultimately what he died for.

B (36:03)

And I have a message for Rep. Jackson. It's fool from Illinois, Charlie's home state. If you want to know the real reason that Washington is toxic, it's because of fools like you. It's because of ignorant fools like you that spend more time on social media and your algorithms that are designed to lie to you and feed you your own confirmation biases, lies about Charlie and what he actually believed, what he actually said, than discovering the truth because the truth is inconvenient to you. That Charlie actually thought the intent of the Civil Rights act was noble, but it was executed in the wrong way. It was put in place in the wrong way. You would rather vilify a martyr than acknowledge the truth? You would rather go on Morning Joe and tell Joe Scarborough a complete and utter fiction than admit that you're wrong. It's these kinds of lies, by the way, Rep. Jackson, that led to Charlie's assassination in the first place. It was fools like you, ignorant fools like you, who told lie after lie after lie about what he said and what he believed and that had it churned out with these cherry pick clips that lied about him, that got him assassinated in the first place. How many more people have to be killed? How many conservatives have to die by an assassin's bullet for you guys to be satisfied? You can kindly leave his name out of your mouth. Rep. Jackson and you should actually, if you had any shame, you would apologize, but you probably won't because you believe the lie so fundamentally. Shame on you. Shame on Morning Joe for airing it. I hope you push back. I didn't see that part of the clip. Probably not. For more on many of these stories and news you can Trust, go to charliekirk.com.