The Fury Continues + The Clintons Before Congress + Primary Day in Texas

Summary

The Charlie Kirk Show

Episode: The Fury Continues + The Clintons Before Congress + Primary Day in Texas
Date: March 3, 2026

Episode Overview

In this fast-paced episode, Charlie Kirk and his team dig into three major themes:

• The ongoing Middle East crisis and U.S. strikes on Iran (with analysis of the administration's justification and shifting narrative)
• Explosive Congressional appearances by Bill and Hillary Clinton, scrutinized for their ties to Jeffrey Epstein and sharp exchanges with lawmakers
• Texas primary day, with Attorney General Ken Paxton taking on Senator John Cornyn in a landmark Senate race and other key Texas contests explored

Along the way, the panel brings in notable guests, including Sean Davis of The Federalist and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, and features direct commentary from major political players. The episode blends sharp conservative critique, policy deep-dives, and behind-the-scenes campaign insight.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. U.S. Action Against Iran: Motivation and Messaging

(Start: 01:16)

• Charlie Kirk opens with a critique: The administration finally offered more substance about the strikes on Iran, after pressure from voices like him and Blake demanding a public justification.
• Steve Witkoff’s Bombshell (02:50): Recounted negotiations with Iran, where Iranian officials allegedly boasted about having enough enriched uranium for 11 nuclear bombs. Kirk underscores the gravity:

  "They were proud that they had evaded all sorts of oversight protocols to get to a place where they could deliver 11 nuclear bombs." (02:50 – Charlie Kirk)

• Skepticism and Caution: Blake reminds listeners that similar WMD claims have been made before, referencing lessons from Iraq. Kirk clarifies his trust in "eyewitness" information over anonymous intelligence leaks.
• Marco Rubio’s 4 Reasons for Striking Iran (Clips at 05:46–08:53)
  • Eliminate Iran's ballistic missile and naval threat (05:46)
  • Pre-positioned Iranian orders meant any attack on Iran (by the U.S. or Israel) would trigger a response against the U.S. (06:30)
  • Casualty minimization: Preempting an Iranian attack would save American lives* (07:10)*
  • Iran’s goal: amass enough conventional weapons to make their nuclear program untouchable* (08:02)*
• Listener Opinion: Mixed reaction; some buy the case, others remain unconvinced by administration arguments (09:17)
• Sean Davis (Federalist) joins (11:19): Discusses whether the U.S. acted on its own, or was goaded by Israeli plans.

  “It is a complicated situation. We have intertwining interests with Israel...I think we should have an open conversation about how we’re doing things in the Middle East and in whose interests they are.” (11:27 – Sean Davis)

Notable Quotes & Moments

• President Trump’s View (12:54):

  "No, I might have forced their hand...Based on the way the negotiation was going, I think [the Iranians] were going to attack first." (12:54 - Trump via Ken Paxton quote)

• Israeli Intelligence Praised:

  "It goes to show the lengths at which Mossad has infiltrated the Iranian infrastructure inside the country." (16:09 – Charlie Kirk)

  • Includes humor about the Iranian Supreme Council meeting in person, with Rubio, Charlie, and Blake bantering about insecure regimes and intelligence.

• Sean Davis on U.S. Middle East Military Footprint (17:41):

  “As soon as you do that [build a permanent embassy], you are permanently in that country for 50 or 100 years. You're guaranteeing you're going to be vulnerable...Maybe we just shouldn't be in a position in a lot of these places where we're so easily threatened.”

• Munitions Stockpile Worries (19:18):

  “I worry that our allies…and us…are running low on defensive missiles, a lot more than I worry about us running low on offensive munitions.” (19:32 – Sean Davis)

Timestamps

• 01:16 – Episode theme and Iran segment opens
• 02:50 – Steve Witkoff’s Iranian uranium claim
• 05:46–08:53 – Rubio’s 4 reasons for strike (audio clips)
• 11:19 – Sean Davis interview starts
• 15:31 – Israeli strike on Iranian leadership recounted
• 17:41 – Davis on permanent U.S. installations
• 19:18 – Munitions/stockpile issue

---

2. Texas Primary Day: Insider Perspective & High-Stakes Races

(30:16 onwards)

• Ken Paxton Interview – Senate Primary Dynamics

  • Paxton details challenges facing entrenched incumbents, noting that Cornyn has spent nearly $100 million, while his campaign spent only $3 million, relying on high name recognition (32:20)

  • Negative campaign saturation and grassroots fatigue noted:

    "It's like...I think it almost wears people out. It's too much. He's doing more than getting a message out. It's overkill." (34:38 – Ken Paxton)

  • Paxton vs Cornyn: What’s At Stake?

    • Tyler Boyer: “Your race is the heart and soul of the future of the conservative movement... Next to Donald Trump shocking the world in 2016, this is probably the second biggest shock maybe in the history of modern American politics.” (36:13 – Tyler Boyer)

  • Paxton: Cites uphill fight to avoid a runoff but is optimistic:

    "I've looked at the numbers...polls after early voting that suggest I’m in the 40s, Cornyn’s in the low 30s...It’s not impossible, it’s just challenging to get to 50% plus one." (38:27 – Ken Paxton)

• Other Key Texas Races (#Timestamps from 39:43)

  • Steve Toth vs Dan Crenshaw: Toth seen as the grassroots, Freedom Caucus challenger, potentially ousting the high-profile incumbent.
  • Don Huffines for Comptroller: Representing anti-establishment sentiment.
  • Chip Roy’s District: Focus on his Freedom Caucus credentials and establishment vs. populist dynamics.

Timestamps

• 30:16 – Texas races segment begins
• 30:39 – Paxton interview starts
• 41:22 – Overview of key congressional races
• 44:54 – Discussion of Don Huffines and establishment politics
• 46:29 – Chip Roy’s primary dilemma

---

3. Congressional Grilling of Bill & Hillary Clinton: Epstein Fallout

(48:54 – major segment)

• Anna Paulina Luna describes the mood inside the room during the Clintons’ depositions:

  • Bill Clinton’s Testimony: Jovial demeanor but candid about his Epstein ties; admitted relationship was problematic but denied witnessing or participating in illegal acts.
  • Hillary Clinton’s Testimony: Described as uncooperative, defensive, “lost her temper...slamming tables like it's Benghazi all over again.” (51:16 – Charlie Kirk)
  • Key lines from Clinton testimonies:

    “I never saw anybody do anything wrong. I thought they were flight attendants.” (51:37 – Bill Clinton)
    “When you saw photos…what went through your mind?” – “I'm here not to offer my opinions…I'm here to answer specific questions to the best of my ability.” (65:25 – Luna & Clinton)

• On Epstein as an Intelligence Asset

  • Luna presses the Clintons about possible “honeypot” operations:

    “I even confronted both Secretary Clinton and President Clinton with the facts that Jeffrey Epstein was an intel asset. I asked specifically with Secretary Clinton, which he said, you know, it’s quite possible he was running a honeypot operation, which I think is very, very evident at this point.” (52:25–55:30 – Anna Paulina Luna)

• No Evidence Against Trump, per Clinton (60:52)

  “He never said anything to make me think he was involved in anything improper with regard to Epstein either.” (61:03 – Bill Clinton)

• Salacious & Heated Exchanges (65:25+):

  • Charlie and panel recount tense moments, including Hillary threatening to walk out over photo leaks and slamming the table—described as "a total Benghazi moment."

Timestamps

• 48:54 – Anna Paulina Luna interview begins
• 51:37 – Clinton’s “flight attendants” defense
• 60:52 – Bill Clinton on Trump/Epstein
• 65:25 – Hillary grilled about husband’s massages/photos
• 66:46 – Angry exchange over leaked images in hearing

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On U.S. Middle East Policy:

  "I think we should have an open conversation about how we’re doing things in the Middle East and in whose interests they are." (11:27 – Sean Davis)

• On Establishment Politics:

  “This race is going to probably be the heart and soul…of the future of the conservative movement.” (36:13 – Tyler Boyer)

• On Clinton Drama:

  “Meanwhile, Hillary's, like, slamming tables like it's Benghazi all over again.” (51:16 – Charlie Kirk)
  “If those images would have come out, it would have been...the most important thing on the news for three years.” (64:41 – Tyler Boyer)

• Comic Relief:

  “That meeting should have been an email.” (16:07 – Charlie Kirk, on Iranian Supreme Council)

---

Additional Highlights

• European Reactions to Iran Strikes (24:31–29:06):

  • Varied: Germany firm, France "talks tough," UK reluctant but relents, Spain refuses use of bases, causing U.S. anger.
  • Critique of shifting European alliances and leftist governments' foreign policy impact.

• Clinton Deposition Drama:

  • Humorous and tense exchanges, especially regarding Bill Clinton’s past and Hillary’s anger at leaks. Described as surreal, but also a “total Benghazi moment.”

• Alliance of Sovereign Nations Summit Preview (57:56): Turning Point Action’s new event to rally nationalist and populist European leaders on free speech, energy independence, and tough borders.

---

Timestamps Recap

• 01:16 – Iran: Rationale for strikes
• 05:46–08:53 – Rubio’s justification
• 11:19 – Sean Davis interview
• 15:31 – Israeli intelligence actions
• 17:41 – On overreach of U.S. bases
• 19:18 – Munitions concerns
• 30:16 – Texas primary breakdown
• 30:39 – Ken Paxton on campaign spending
• 41:22 – Key House races in Texas
• 48:54 – Anna Paulina Luna on Clinton depositions
• 51:37 – “I thought they were flight attendants”
• 60:52 – Bill Clinton on Trump/Epstein
• 65:25 – Heated Hillary exchange about photos
• 66:46 – Table-slamming moment over leaked images

---

Summary Conclusion

This episode blends frontline political analysis with high drama, insider campaign strategy, and a dose of humor. Charlie Kirk and guests challenge conventional narratives on U.S. foreign policy, expose the maneuvering behind the Texas GOP’s identity crisis, and capture the tense spectacle of the Clinton testimony on Capitol Hill. For listeners, it’s a whirlwind of clarity and confrontation—staying true to the show’s unapologetic, conservative, freedom-first perspective.

Transcript

[Charlie Kirk]

My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro American student organization in the country, fighting for the

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth.

[Charlie Kirk]

If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're gonna end up miserable. But if the most important thing is

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

doing good, you will end up purposeful.

[Charlie Kirk]

College is a scam, everybody.

[Blake]

You gotta stop sending your kids to college.

[Charlie Kirk]

You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Go start a Turning Point USA College chapter. Go start a Turning Point USA High School chapter.

[Charlie Kirk]

Go find out how your church can get involved.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Sign up and become an activist.

[Charlie Kirk]

I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade. Most important decision I ever made in my life. And I encourage you to do the same. Here I am, Lord.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Use me. Buckle up, everybody.

[Charlie Kirk]

Here we go.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

The Charlie Kirk show is proudly sponsored by Preserve Gold, the the leading gold and silver experts and the only precious metals company I recommend to my family, friends and viewers. All right. Welcome to the Charlie Kirk show. It is March 3rd. Welcome, Blake.

[Blake]

Howdy.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

So I have been publicly calling for the administration to sell this war more fully to give us a more comprehensive explanation of why. Why did we strike? Why do we strike now against Iran? Blake, you had been doing the same. You had been noting the same. I got a bunch of calls from reporters yesterday asking do I feel like the admin's done a sufficient job. Well, guess what? You do not have to be necessarily in favor of what's going on in Iran to admit that yesterday they added a lot more detail to the sales pitch and I think that's good. They should be forced to explain kinetic use of US Military forces in the Middle East. Absolutely. And to explain the why. We deserve that. So we're gonna go through this and I will. We're gonna have Sean Davis on from the Federalists, specifically on the quote from Rubio that seemed to really cause a bunch of headlines yesterday explaining he kind of had a three part answer and in one of those, it seemed to suggest that we got involved because Israel was going to act. And if Israel act, they were going to shoot us anyway, so we might as well preemptively attack Iran. So we'll get into that. But there's more layers than just that clip. Now, by the way, Trump has just responded. He's doing a bilat with the chancellor of Germany currently and we're going to also later in the hour break down the difference between France, Germany, Spain and the uk. Uk.

[Blake]

The uk.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

The uk. So anyways, here we go. Let's start with Steve Witkoff. Remember now, Steve Witkoff was negotiating alongside Jared Kushner as we were hoping for a diplomatic solution to this Iranian issue. And Steve Wyckoff dropped an absolute bombshell last night on Sean Hannity Show395. In that first meeting, both the Iranian negotiators said to us directly with, you know, no shame, that they controlled 460 kilograms of 60%. And they're aware that that could make 11 nuclear bombs. And that was the beginning of their negotiating stance. So that's. That's. They were. They were proud of it. They were proud that they had evaded all sorts of oversight protocols to get to a place where they could deliver 11 nuclear bombs. All right, so 11 nuclear bombs, instantly, Blake, your mind went to weapons of mass destroy.

[Blake]

Exactly. Now, that's a strong claim. If it's true. That's a very strong point in favor of the administration's position, which is they're just clearly endlessly going to pursue this very dangerous thing. But we have been around this sort of thing before.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

We've seen this movie before. Have you?

[Blake]

Yes. And it will be desirable. It will be good, if we can find a bunch of enriched uranium in the rubble of these facilities. Eventually, of course, we also don't want ground troops to go looking for it.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Yep.

[Blake]

So.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Well, and listen, I'll explain why I think this is different, and that is because this was direct witness eyewitness. This wasn't relying on intelligence or, you know, some ideologue that's trying to find intelligence where none exists in field. This is apparently Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner sitting across the table from negotiators, and they bragged about it. That's a little bit different. Now, if that's proven to be false and that they were just lying to maybe strengthen their negotiating position, that's also telling. But it doesn't mean that he's lying. Right. It doesn't mean that Steve Witkoff is lying here. And it's an important data point. Listen, I've seen Matt Walsh's arguments that, hey, if the Fordo strikes were so successful, why did we need to go in again? And I disagree with only that point. I agree with a lot of what Walsh was saying in that tweet. But here's the deal. A dog backed in the corner is more likely to bite. They realized that their time was ticking. Right. That President Trump had this line saying this was the last best chance to do this. Okay. And that seems to basically be in sync with What Marco Rubio then said, right. So Marco Rubio comes to the podium and says, I know, I don't know why there's all this confusion about this. You know, I think we've made the case. Well, I didn't think they'd made the case, but I like that he was addressing it. So kudos to him. Let's start with reason number one for 20.

[Marco Rubio]

The United States is conducting an operation to eliminate the threat of Iran's short range ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their navy, particularly to naval assets. That is what it is focused on doing right now and it's doing quite successfully. I'll leave it to the Pentagon and the Department of War to discuss the tactics behind that and the progress that's being made. That is the clear objective of this mission.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

All right, so he says the objective is to take out the ballistic missiles and the naval threat. Okay. When we talk about the Strait of Hormuz, this all becomes very clear. About 20% of the nation of the world's energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz. About 14 to 15% of all trade goes through the Strait of Hormuz. So he continues, reason number two, 421.

[Marco Rubio]

It was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone, the United States or Israel or anyone, they were going to respond and respond against the United States. The orders had been delegated down to the field commanders. It was automatic and in fact it bear to be true because in fact the within an hour of the initial attack on the leadership compound, the missile forces in the south and in the north for that matter had already been activated to launch. In fact those had already been pre positioned.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Okay, so he makes the point that we were going to get attacked no matter what happened automatically that that had already been communicated down to the field commanders. Okay, he continues, reason number three, 424.

[Marco Rubio]

The assessment that was made that if we stood and waited for that attack to come first before we hit them, we would suffer much higher ca casualties. And so the President made the very wise decision. We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces. And we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed. And then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and didn't act.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

All right, so I know this is a little bit clip heavy, but this was a literally a four part answer that he Gave this is reason number four I guess you would say it's really three reasons. He said three but it's really fourth reason. And he talks about now this conventional weapon shield that would make them immune from any threats in the future that have become too dangerous to attack them.

[Marco Rubio]

432 why does Iran want that ballistic missile capability? What they are trying to do and have been trying to do for a very long time is build a conventional weapons cap capability as a shield where they can hide behind. Meaning there would come a point where they have so many conventional missiles, so many drones and it can inflict so much damage that no one can do anything about their nuclear program. That is what they were trying to do is put themselves in a place of immunity where the damage they could inflict on the region would be so high that no one can do anything about their nuclear program or their nuclear ambitions. They are producing by some estimates, estimates over 100 of these missiles a month. Compare that to the six or seven interceptors that can be built a month. They can build 100 of these a month. Not to mention the thousands of one way attack drones that they also have. They've been doing this for a very long time and by the way they've been doing it under sanction.

[Blake]

Well we got a lot of clips there and so we've heard that they had a giant pile of uranium and they were going to go for a bomb. We've heard all these ballistic missiles and we heard Israel was going to attack anyway so we felt we had to join or there would be more casualties. There's gonna be a lot of discussion about that one for sure. We wanna hear from all of you. Do you think the arguments have been strong or not? We wanna hear from the base about this.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Freedomarliekirk.com Email us.

[Blake]

We'll take a look at those

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

this year. It marks a very critical moment in our country's history as the opposition grows more aggressive and unapologetic and insane. The fight now reaches into everyday decisions we make. Patriot Mobile has been standing on the front lines fighting for freedom for more than 12 years. They don't just deliver top tier wireless service which they do, but they're activists like me, like Turningpoint, who truly care about our country. Patriot Mobile offers prioritized premium access on all three major US networks giving you the same or better coverage than the main carriers. That means fast speeds and dependable nationwide coverage backed by 100% US based customer support. They also offer unlimited data plans, mobile hotspots, international roaming and more with simple, seamless activation, you can switch in minutes, keep your number, keep your phone or upgrade. And here's the difference. When you switch to Patriot Mobile, you'll be part of a powerful stream of giving that directly funds the Christian conservative movement. Call 972 Patriot today or go to patriotmobile.com Charlie. Use promo code Charlie for a free month of service. That's patriotmobile.com Charlie. Or call 972 Patriot and make the switch today. Joining us now is Sean Davis, CEO and co founder of the Federalist. Very smart man. Sean, welcome back to the show, my friend. You and I were talking last night because you had this tweet. I thought it was very, very smartly worded. And you quoted kind of a famous quote that, you know, says there's always two reasons that a man does something. One, the reason he states out loud and then the real reason. And you were referring to Rubio's statement about why we went into war. And he made this comment, we already played it earlier. You said, he said that, you know, we knew Israel was going to strike, and so we knew that America was going to hit when they did. America was going to get hit when they did that. So, so we decided to preemptively attack. Did Israel sort of, to use the parlance, dog walk us into this war, or is there more to the story?

[Charlie Kirk]

Yeah, well, it's interesting. There seems to have been a bit of a walk back from what Rubio said, from what Johnson said after him, I think from what Cotton said this morning, what we've read in some news reports, Trump in the Oval Office today said, no, no, no, if anyone got anyone into this war, it was us getting Israel into the war. I wouldn't, I don't know if I would personally say dog walk. I get why some people might. I think it is a complicated situation. We have intertwining interests with Israel. They're an ally and they're a friend. We also at times have some contradictory interests. There may be things they want to do that aren't great for us and vice versa. But I actually think it's great for it to be out there that, hey, we're not out there acting on our own. This was not all us, nor is Israel out there all acting on their own. They had interests, we had interest. We were working together to do this. It's been odd to me to see so many people recoil that reality being laid out like, oh, that didn't happen, or, oh, you're not allowed to say that. Well, multiple people said that I think we should have an open conversation about how we're doing things in the Middle east and in whose interests they are.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Yeah, well, and by the way, you mentioned this clip. It just happened with the Chancellor of Germany. So let's go ahead and play it437.

[Charlie Kirk]

Did Israel forced your hand to launch

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

these strikes against Iran?

[Anna Paulina Luna]

Did that y' all pull the United States into this war?

[Ken Paxton]

No, I might have forced their hand.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

You see, we were having negotiations with

[Ken Paxton]

these lunatics and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

They were to going, going to attack.

[Ken Paxton]

If we didn't do it, they were

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

going to attack first. I felt strongly about that. And we have great negotiators, great people, people that do this very successfully and have done it all their lives, very successful. And based on the way the negotiation

[Ken Paxton]

was going, I think they were going to attack first.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

And I didn't want that to happen. So if anything, I might have forced Israel's hand.

[Ken Paxton]

But is Israel was ready and we were ready, and we've had a very, very powerful impact.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

All right, so I'm gonna throw it to Blake now, cuz I just put you on the spot, Sean. Blake, what do you make of this? Is it just a complex situation where both things can sort of be true at the same time?

[Blake]

Well, I don't know. I think truthfully, what I lean towards with what the President said is the president very much never wants to suggest he was influenced. He's always the driver of events, he's always the pilot of actions. And in a lot of ways he is. He's such a active force throughout everything. But at the same time, I, I do feel like, you know, Rubio didn't say that for no reason, but it comes within layers here because it could be that the President got on board with a, this, some sort of war with Iran months ago. I mean, we were obviously building up towards it for ages, and then there was disagreement on specific timing, specific actions. And, you know, I don't, I don't really want to hard commit on a specific answer because I suspect a lot of stuff will come out in the days and weeks, months, years to come. This will be dissected over and over again. And if you looked at like the Iraq war, when it happened, there was a lot of false stuff about the Iraq war when it unfolded, and we only really came to understand it years later.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Yeah, and I would say this. Just because something is in that something is good for Israel doesn't mean that's the reason why we did it so America could make a decision that our leaders determine is in our national security interest and it might be good for Israel, but that might not be the driving force. Right. So both things could, in theory, be true at the same time. I wanted to play this clip really quick, Sean, just because I, you know, this is an offensive action taken by Israel where they were meeting, gathering the religious leaders to pick a new ayatollah, a new supreme leader, and they apparently have not figured out Zoom yet. So 394.

[Marco Rubio]

I'm told by a senior Israeli official that the Israelis just struck the Supreme

[Charlie Kirk]

Council gathering where the Iranians were meeting to change, choose a new supreme leader.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

This is a significant development.

[Marco Rubio]

And again, speaks to the Israeli intelligence about this war. They just targeted the meeting in Tehran where what's left of the leadership was

[Charlie Kirk]

gathering to choose a new supreme leader.

[Blake]

I feel like they could have. You know, we're usually against mail voting. I think I would have. If I were Iranian, I would have approved postal voting.

[Charlie Kirk]

That meeting should have been an email.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Yeah, exactly. I mean, but it goes to show the lengths at which Mossad has infiltrated the Iranian infrastructure inside the country. They seem to know where these guys are at at all time. There's that famous clip, I don't know if you've seen it, Sean, where Ahmadinejad is talking about they, you know, they developed this task force to go after Mossad and root out Mossad within the Iranian ranks, only to find out that the head of that task force was a Mossad agent. So, I mean.

[Blake]

Whoops.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Yeah. I mean, listen, you don't have to love this conflict. You don't have to be in support of it. But, you know, hat tip where it's due, credit where it's due, the talents are on full display here. You just have to sort of acknowledge that much.

[Charlie Kirk]

It's one thing I actually love about the Israelis and the Brits is unlike us, they kind of never abandon actual human intelligence. We seem overly reliant on technology and surveillance, and they've just decided, you know, both the Brits and the Israelis, no, we're going to go in and have people as deep cover assets for decades. There's something we could learn from that.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Yeah, I totally agree. You made another really good point here, though, Sean. You talked about when we built the Iraqi embassy, which has come under fire now. It was back in 2004, 2005, spent all this money building up an embassy there, and now it's. And we've done this throughout the region, and now it's a sitting duck that we have to defend. What's your thinking here? Why was that strategically a mistake? How should we position ourselves in the Middle East? Yeah.

[Charlie Kirk]

So a lot of our conversation about what's going on in Iran has been in the vacuum of what's happening there right now. And obviously there are reasons for that. You can't go back in time and reverse things you've already done. But the question I ask is, why how were we so vulnerable to Iranian attack over there? It's because we have bases in installations everywhere.

[Ken Paxton]

And.

[Charlie Kirk]

And as I wrote in that tweet, when I worked for Tom Coburn in 2005, one of the first amendments he made me do as a staffer was one defunding the Iraqi Embassy, US Embassy in Iraq, which hadn't been built yet, something like a billion or a billion and a half dollars. And he said, look, as soon as you do that, you are permanently in that country for 50 or 100 years. You're guaranteeing that you're going to be vulnerable, that you're going to have bases, that we're going to be surrounded by people who hate us. It's a similar issue in Libya, by the way, which I think is a good cautionary example. Gaddafi disarmed in good faith under Bush, and then along in the next term comes Obama, and Hillary decides to depose him. They have him thrown out and murdered. And then what happens a couple years later? We end up because of a secret CIA outpost in there which was helping to traffic arms. They claim it was to take them off the streets, but helping to traffic arms. And then we end up seeing our ambassador, two Navy SEALs, and an intel expert from State getting killed. It is a logical result when you are so far flung, you have so many people and installations and places surrounded by people that hate us, that you're gonna be at risk. And maybe we should be taking a look going forward rather than having to respond and go to war anytime someone over there threatens us. Maybe we just shouldn't be in a position in a lot of these places where we're so easily threatened.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Final question, Sean. There's been much made about our munitions stockpiles. Are you hearing anything? President Trump said we could, you know, we have basically unlimited. Is that what you're hearing? Or is there a certain type of missile that we're more concerned about?

[Charlie Kirk]

Well, yeah, it. This is actually one of the major reasons so many of us were opposed to what we were doing in Ukraine, just giving all of our stockpiles to them without thinking, hey, what's going to happen to us if we actually need those for our national interests, not just Ukraine's? I think we're starting to see some of that now. I do worry about a lot of interceptor missiles, what I call defensive missiles, thaads that are used to intercept and stop incoming Iranian missiles. I worry that our allies over there, uae, Qatar, Bahrain, the Saudis, the Israelis, I worry about us running low on those a lot more than I worry about us running low on offensive munitions.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Yeah. And I actually asked how many of these missiles we can produce a month. I was like, we need to ramp it up. And apparently we've signed a contract with Boeing recently to double the output. But our current output is 2 to 4. No, our current output is like 60amonth. I mean, that's max, max, max, like 60, 70amonth. So. And they're flying, you know, $20,000 drones at us that we're taking out with a 2 million dollar missile. And you know, the maths. The maths don't math. Sean Davis, excellent analysis as always, Sean. I must follow at the Federalist as well as on X. You're always throwing a wrench into the gears, and I love it because contrary thinking is super, super important right now. Sean Davis, excellent work. Thank you. We'll see you soon.

[Charlie Kirk]

Thank you, sir.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

All right. We asked for your emails, freedomarliekirk.com and you delivered, Blake.

[Blake]

Yeah. Let's get a few of them. Christopher said, hello, Charlie. Kirk show. The argument has not been made strongly, but Islamist Iran is the mortal enemy of the US it's too bad Reagan didn't destroy the ayatollahs regime in the 1980s. Now Trump has to clean up Jimmy Carter's giant mess. How about Lindsey says, I appreciate Marco's response and explanation. That was enough for me. I trust President Trump. Mark says Charlie would not have questioned Trump. You guys are off the rails. I assure you we are doing our best to communicate how we think Charlie would have felt through all this. We, of course, can't know he's not with us.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Well, and listen, I walked with Charlie alongside, so did you, Blake, about the way Charlie handled Operation Midnight Hammer, the lead up to that, privately, you know, he obviously expressed his, you know, his reticence and then. But he said, you know, honestly, he said privately and publicly to me, he said, listen, if Trump decides to go, we're gonna have his back. Okay? I mean, that Charlie worked his butt off probably harder than anybody else in this country besides Trump himself, to get Trump elected. And listen, I think that we are not questioning Trump's leadership here, his instincts. But listen, anytime you go into a regime change situation, there are going to be unintended consequences. And to act like there's not gonna be unintended consequences, I think is foolish. But we have his back. And now that we. We're going, we're praying for success. We're praying for the security and safety of our troops. I woke up this morning at 2:30 because my daughter woke me up. And I just literally started praying for our troops because I was feeling anxiety about it, and I want them to be safe. There's six dead servicemen. So listen, we're trying to honor the spirit of Charlie, but obviously we don't know how he would have reacted. Anybody tells you he would have, he's not here right now.

[Blake]

Yeah, we have some more. Kathleen says, I strongly support President Trump's operation in Iran. The ICBMs the Iranian regime was working on were intended for the US And President Trump is good at multitasking and working hard to help the American people. He has already done a number of things to help the economy. And she also apparently sent an email about possibly moving to South Dakota. I'm going to have to read that one. I'll get back to you on that one, Kathleen. I am, of course, a big fan of that. Several others. I think the most common one is

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

a lot of support, a lot of

[Blake]

we trust President Trump, which is what we said is generally what Charlie's point of view would be, we think, which is he would have argued against this going up to it. But if the president heard him and the president would listen to him, if the president listened to him and did it anyway, Charlie would give him the grace and trust to say he knows things I don't.

[Ken Paxton]

He.

[Blake]

He has a good record on these. I think that's where his posture would be.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

President Trump has had a good record on not getting us embroiled in forever wars. Okay. Gotta give him a little leash, little room to maneuver here. He's proven himself to be a very adept operator on the world stage. So here's what I wanna get into now. There's a couple different storylines. There's the oil. How much China is relying on the oil. Maybe we'll get to that in an hour or two if we have a segment. But let's just go around the horn and get the European reaction to the Iranian strikes, because they are varied and it's kind of surprising, honestly.

[Blake]

I wanna start with the honorary Europeans of Canada, because that is the one I find the Funniest. We've had a lot of friction with last year. Carney has definitely tried to turn himself into basically the foil. Yeah, a foil of Trump, the avatar of being his critic. Like he's talking about, oh, we've realigned. Like we can't rely on these old alliances. He's shifting towards China. And then as soon as this broke out, he puts out a statement that's basically, we support America's operation.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Well, let's start with another one then too. German Chancellor was just in the White house of President Trump. 438 we are on the same page in terms of getting this terrible regime in Tehran away.

[Ken Paxton]

And we will talk about the day after what will happen then if they are out.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Macron had some strong words. 439 Our deterrent is both robust and efficient.

[Tyler Boyer]

All those who would be bold enough

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

to strike at France must be aware of the unbearable cost that it would take on them. So he's talking tough. Macron, the French, they always like to talk tough and then we'll see how it really plays out. But hey, broadly supportive. Keir Starmer is on the list for Trump right now. Here it is. 444. Mr. Speaker, we all remember the mistakes of Iraq and we have learned those lessons. Any UK actions must always have a lawful basis and a viable thought through plan. I say again, we were not involved in the initial strikes on Iran and we will not join offensive action now. And by the way, so Keir Starmer was not giving access to American bases or UK bases for American strikes. They have since reversed that decision, but it was with a lot of hemming and hawing and hand wringing and President Trump is not too happy about it for 40 by the way, I'm not happy with the UK either. That island that you read about, the

[Ken Paxton]

lease, okay, he made it.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

For whatever reason, he made a lease of the island. Somebody came and took it away from him and it's taken three, four days for us to work out where we can land there. It would have been much more convenient landing there as opposed to flying many extra hours. So we are very surprised. This is not Winston Churchill that we're dealing with. He went on to repeat that, by the way. But perhaps the most, I don't know, annoying NATO partner would be Spain. Spain denies this is.443. Spain denies US military use of its bases for Iran attack. The leftist government in Madrid said the war against Iran violated both international law and the agreement between Spain and the United States for use of air bases. Now we actually have like, I think two or three in Spain. I know Rota's one. These are really complex installations there in Spain. So this is a big deal. President Trump is now threatening to embargo all business that the US does with Spade. He's very angry, he's very upset.

[Blake]

I will say I had this thought at first. He's known to Admire President William McKinley, who, for those of you who don't remember high school U.S. history, fought the Spanish American War to get Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines and Cuba.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Yeah, well, and so what's interesting here is that Spain just, this is the same leftist government that just, I guess, legalized essentially a million. They said it was gonna be 500,000 immigrants. It's gonna be more like a million. So welcome to the new Spain. This leftist elections matter. They have consequences. Spain's about to find out. So all of this is very, very interesting to see the varied responses. I'm grateful, oddly enough to the Chancellor of Germany for being very clear minded, very firm on this and actually also the mark, what's it? Ruta of NATO has been very, very supportive. So lots of good alliances forming, but a few that are more suspect. We're gonna keep our eyes on our alliances.

[Blake]

The online world moves fast and it's moving even faster these days. That's why TikTok approaches teen safety with families in mind from the start. Because discovery and creativity are both wonderful things. But it's important to make sure that safety comes first as well. On TikTok, teenagers have over 50 built in protections right from when they join. Accounts, routines all start private by default. They're not open to the entire world. And for those under 16, direct messages are turned off. Only their friends can comment on their videos. And that kind of approach matters because feeling confident and comfortable about these platforms your teenagers are on shouldn't mean digging through a bunch of menus and trying to set everything up yourself and worrying that you got it wrong. TikTok is taking a proactive approach. Their protections are built in from the moment those teenagers join so that safety and peace of mind for parents is there right from the start. All of this is to say, when safety comes first, discovery and creativity can follow without fear. Learn more by going to TikTok.com guardians guide. That's TikTok.com guardiansguide

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

we are joined on set by Tyler Boyer, COO of Turning Point Action. We're going to be going in depth into Texas because tonight is the night, the big primary, and we have the man himself, Attorney General Ken Paxton, running for U.S. senate in the great state of Texas. Welcome back to the show, Mr. Attorney General. It's a big day for you. What are we seeing? What are we thinking?

[Ken Paxton]

You know, so good to be back. I can remember talking to Charlie about this over a year ago, and it's hard to believe that this day is actually here. I think it's going to be a good day. I think people have grown weary of a senator who has been claiming to be a Republican but hasn't accomplished anything for our state. I've literally traveled the state since April 8. I've asked every single person, whether it was one person or 3,000 people. Can you name one great accomplishment of John Cornyn? And even his supporters can't come up with an answer. It means it's time for a change. I think the voters are going to do it today.

[Tyler Boyer]

Well, Ken. Mr. Attorney General, this has been a David versus Goliath fight. This is the most expensive race in Texas history, I think, primary race. The primary race that's ever been spent,

[Ken Paxton]

I think US History for a primary.

[Tyler Boyer]

Yeah, it's totally insane, the amount of money that's been spent by the establishment to target you. And yet every poll is showing you, every single poll showing you not just a little bit ahead, not just competitive, but pretty significantly ahead. What does this say? Just speak a little bit to this about this fight, because nobody really understands, I think, on the outside and across the country that, you know, when you actually tabulate all the money that the campaign that Cornyn spent, all the outside group money, it's probably close to $100 million that's been spent against you. And yet the people of Texas are still coming out, you know, big behind Paxton. So what has that fight been like? And where do you go from here to help kind of unify the entire state of Texas and the rest of the country so that kind of thing never happens again.

[Ken Paxton]

Yeah, it's pretty shocking. I think he has spent close to 100 million. We've spent around 3 million. There's quite. That's quite a disparity. Even if you're bad at math, that's a big. That's a big number. I think part of it is one of the things I looked at when I got in the race was Texas is not like. A lot of. It's just so big. And so getting name ID is not easy. Even if you. You're. You've done really good things. If you're a congressman In Texas, just one of 38, if you're a state senator, you're just one of 31. If your house manager, just one of 150. So it's really difficult to take that next step against somebody that's been in public office for over 40 years. So I looked at that when I tested it. My name ID back in February of last year was 90. John's was in the 70s. So I knew even if he outspent me now, did I think he'd outspend me 33 to 1?

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

No.

[Ken Paxton]

But I felt like somebody with name ID had to run. And it wasn't going to be somebody from Congress, it wasn't going to be somebody from the Texas legislature because they just don't have a name id. It's literally that simple. You have to have the name id. And because I'm in office and I can keep working and keep talking about it, it's allowed me to stay fresh in the minds of voters despite the tremendous number of negative ads and the number of false ads that he's written about himself claiming to be a MAGA conservative pro border. All that, you know, all of it was false.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Yeah, Ken, I remember talking with you and when this whole kind of race was gathering steam, you said to me, you said, watch, he's gonna vote lockstep with the President. All of a sudden he's gonna be Mr. Maga General. I mean, it was soon as you announced, you knew this was gonna be kind of the pattern he was gonna walk. But here's what else is interesting, is that you are getting outspent 31. You have ads on TV every day. Right. I mean, this is pretty clear. I mean, it's multiple, multiple times a day, just a deluge of anti Paxton media. Right now I've seen.

[Ken Paxton]

I was watching Fox News on Sunday because of the efforts of the war, and I saw three ads in a row that were John Cornyn, one positive, two different negative ads on me. And that was happening all day long.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

So, you know, what's that like?

[Ken Paxton]

It's like. I mean, I think it almost wears people out. It's too much. I mean, he's doing more than getting a message out. It's overkill. And I think people have grown weary of it. It's obviously it's helped close some of the gap because originally I was at 25 points ahead and because I didn't have the money to compete. It's closed some of the gap, but I don't think it's closed the gap to the degree that they expected it to because there's too many educated voters. The people he called radicals. Two days ago. He called them radicals that are voting in the Republican primary. Those are the people that actually know what's going on, and they know what he's done.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Well, I have. Go ahead, Tyler. We brought you in.

[Tyler Boyer]

I was just gonna say, I mean, this has all of the elements that we're walking into to be one of the greatest upsets in establishment history. And again, no one is more deserving of it than you that's actually fought on the side of conservatives. There's no question when the people that know you and have done any investigative work know that you would be a far superior vote in the U.S. senate than John Cornyn. But, you know, we look at this and the lessons that come out of this, because everybody that I've seen talk about this goes, oh, wow, you know, you know, we might have to spend money to help Paxton win in a general. And, you know, that is such a silly argument, because you look at this $100 million, a fraction of that hundred million dollars is what it takes to win. Win in general.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Yeah. How much. How much money was poured in from outside PACs and the NRC here, that $100 million.

[Tyler Boyer]

And so this looks at this tells you everything. This race is going to probably be the heart and soul. Your race is the heart and soul of the future of the conservative movement. I think this is probably next to Donald Trump shocking the world in 2016. This is probably the second biggest shock maybe in the history of modern American politics.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Yeah. And I have two questions off the back of this point that Tyler's making for the attorney general here. Can you win without a runoff? And question two, if you have to go to a runoff, does polling show how much of Wesley Hunt's vote you would accumulate?

[Ken Paxton]

So, first of all, let me just say this. Winning, beating a sitting of a senator, if you'll go back, because of the way the campaign finance laws are set up, and I was limited to 7,000 a person, only half could be used in the primary. 3500. Think about how many people I had to get to just to do one ad in Texas, which is 3, 4, 5 million dollars. And yet you look at incumbency, senatorial incumbency. You go back 40, 50 years, how many senators have lost? You got Richard Lugar in 20 in a smaller state who was completely, you know, had gone left. And then second, you had Mike Lee winning in a convention state where you don't have to spend much money. So you're right. It does not happen very much. As far as winning In a. Not having a runoff. I've looked at the numbers. It's not impossible. It's hard because what people don't realize, there's eight people in my race, so everybody. So I have to. I would tell people, seven on one basketball, and I got to outscore everybody. And they're all trying to score and they're all playing defense, too. So it's, it's not just that. It's, you know, two other people. There's. There's seven other people that I have to outscore all of them. But I've looked at the numbers and I've seen polls after early voting that suggests that I'm in the 40s, that Cohen's in the low 30s, that Wesley's in the teens with about 13% undecided. So if the right number of undecided break my way and if the right. And if that trend continues through election day and the right number of people from Wesley because he's lost a few points over the last couple days, corn and pounded him, and it's not impossible, it's just challenging to get to 50% plus one with eight people.

[Tyler Boyer]

Right.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

And do we have any idea? Well, how about we put it this way? Where do people go? What's the action item? What do they need to do right now?

[Ken Paxton]

Right now, I'm just telling, if you haven't voted, go vote. We still have till 7pm central time. If family members haven't voted, go vote. And then encourage all your friends to go. But it sounds like a small job. I mean, I mean, it may be a lot of hassle for you, but reality is it literally could make the difference between having to go into a runoff and not having to go into a runoff. And I always tell people from the beginning of time, you know, in order to change power, people used to have to fight with their hands and they had to throw rocks and then arrows and then guns bombed. Today, all we have to do is show up to vote and get our friends to get vote. It's a lot more. It's a lot easier than it's been ever. And so we just need to go do it.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Well, don't believe the negative attacks. Ken Paxton can win the general and win it handily and easily. That's the. Basically the attack against you, Ken. It's pretty funny. I've absorbed a lot of them. We've got your back. You're going to be A great next U.S. center from the state of Texas. And so go with God today, win big and hopefully avoid the runoff. But if not, we got your back there, too.

[Ken Paxton]

Well, thank you for having me on. Thank you.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Okay, so, Tyler, let's go around the horn in Texas. What are we watching?

[Tyler Boyer]

Let's lay out the following. Ken Paxton, how this matters. Texas is at a crossroads that some states have entered into, which is, are you going more maga, Are you going more conservative long term, or are you going to go establishment? And the Ken Paxton race is really important because if Paxton is successful, which it looks like he should be, and they make him a US Senator, Texas is going to. The underlying Bush control arm is basically annihilated. And this is very similar to Arizona with McCain. Arizona had to fight this big war, basically, and the McCain influence dissipated. The Paxton race is really important because if Paxton loses, it gives a revitalization to the Bush wing. This sets up all the rest of the races because there's so many other races that are happening in Texas today that are super, super critical. Probably the most, the second most important next to the Paxton race is Dan Crenshaw's district. So the redistricting happened. Districts didn't change too much in this district that was mostly majority, all the same for Dan Crenshaw. But a gentleman named Steve Toth, who's in the state legislature right now, who's really well liked, has been a leader on that. On that front, decided, hey, I'm going to run against Dan Crenshaw. Even though this, you know, seems like a near impossible task. He's really well liked, really well supported by the donor community that has, like, had some real questions for Dan Crenshaw and the positions he's taken. And polling is showing Steve Toth within the realm of possibility of being able to defeat Dan Crenshaw.

[Blake]

So if you're in, we're gonna. We're call you out. Because some people don't know their district. If you're north of Houston, if you're in the Woodlands, if you' in spring

[Tyler Boyer]

in Texas, it's centered around the Woodlands. So if you're anywhere near the Woodlands and in North Houston, your primary matter. Your primary matter always matters.

[Blake]

Wherever you are in Texas, you have

[Tyler Boyer]

an opportunity to replace Dan Crenshaw with Steve Toth, who will be a Freedom Caucus level likely congressman, which is a big, huge.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

That's a huge change.

[Tyler Boyer]

So between Paxton and Tothe, those are the two races to keep an eye on in Texas today, if those both go positively. For both those gentlemen today, Texas has turned a corner that's heading a lot more conservatively in the Republican Party.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Texas went for Trump, I think 13 or 14 points. So it was a big win in Texas. A lot of people were predicting like 4 points, 5 points, 6 points, 5 points. And it ends up going, you know, 14, almost 15 points.

[Tyler Boyer]

And it's funny you bring up this number. So the number to look for tonight for everyone. And when we're on the broadcast tonight, I'll be dipping out early, but we'll have some Texas people that are on the broadcast night because we're live streaming tonight on the Charlie Kirk channels about, you know, evaluating the returns. If Paxton wins by five or more points against Cornyn but still has to go to a runoff. But if it's five or more points, that's. That spells doomsday for Cornyn. They should stop spending all the money. They've already spent $100 million on this man and they haven't been able to get him within five points. That's it. That's it. Now, if it's less than five points for Paxton, that's a problem because they're going to keep spending.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Yeah. And that's, that's a huge, huge pivot point. Right. So are the outside groups the nrsc, because if you watch Fox News or anything, by the way, all the senators get on and they say, we need, we need Cornyn. Right. And that makes sense. It's their colleague and that sort of thing. But it's also NRSC money that's coming in which could be spent on other races at slf. Yeah, the Senate Leadership Leadership Fund.

[Tyler Boyer]

And so, yeah, there's a couple of other important races that are happening. John Bonk, who's running, also a good conservative, 221 likely he's going to be a really good representative in Texas. Obviously you have Congressman Brandon. He's a Brandon Gill type. So Brandon Gill has endorsed them. So if you like Congressman Brandon Gill, again, he's probably one of the most in your face Freedom Caucus esque. Congressman John Bonk is one of those guys. Another good guy that's running is Jace Yarbrough. Jace is in a really tough primary again because Texas has this runoff role. This is Congressional District 32. Another similar young guy, great family, who's going to be an incredible, incredible representation of that. A couple other statewides that are really important. A couple other statewides that are really important. You have Don Huffines that's running for comptroller. Don Huffines, if you remember, ran against Abbott a few years ago. He's been a great supporter of turning points for a long, long time. He got pummeled by Aunt Abbott and had actually had resources and money, got pummeled to have it, but stuck in there. He was one of the best liberty minded members of the legislature for many, many years. He was kind of the face of the opposition to the establishment for a little bit.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

He was big on abolishing property tax. If I remember.

[Tyler Boyer]

Don has been the face of anti establishment activity in Texas for the last 15, 20 years minimum. His whole family has. They've put all of their resources against the establishment at great cost to them. And he's still in this. He's in this thing. He could win comptroller over with over 50%.

[Blake]

I have bad news for you, Tyler. Today is a great day for you to learn. It's usually just pronounced controller, even though they throw that P in there for no reason.

[Charlie Kirk]

Oh, right.

[Tyler Boyer]

It's controller. Okay.

[Blake]

I don't know why.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

What about, what about dumb? What about the Chip Roy race?

[Tyler Boyer]

I'll take it. I'll take that.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

What about Chip Roy?

[Tyler Boyer]

You have Chip Roy. Chip Roy is in. So you have this race right now and everybody's talking about the Attorney General's race. There are three major players that you see in this, in this race. You have Chip Roy and then you have the gentleman that was endorsed by Ken Paxton. And then you have his name's Aaron Reets. And then you have another guy named Mays Middleton. Mays has been described. He's going out and saying a lot of pro Trump things, but he's been described as being friendly with the Trump associate. I'm sorry, not Trump, with the Bush, the bad Bush side of the state of Texas. And Chip has been on the Freedom Caucus, supported by the Freedom Fund, all of that. And then you have again Aaron, who's been endorsed by Ken. All the polling is showing that this race is coming down to between Mays and Chip Roy.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Yeah, it's going to be a nail biter.

[Tyler Boyer]

So. So, you know, now the likelihood is it's still going to go a runoff. But the fact is is that it's likely that Chip is your greatest competition to Maze. We like Chip a lot more because of his background with the Freedom Caucus. He's been the champion for the SAVE act and that's really important.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Yep. And good on the border as well.

[Blake]

Yep.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

I think nutrition has gotten way too complicated. It seems like every week there's a new powder, a new lab created formula, some new breakthrough. But the truth, and we've been told this since we were kids, is to eat your fruit and vegetables. Nobody really explained why when you eat whole foods, you're getting phytonutrients, those natural compounds your body uses to adjust, repair and respond every single day. That's not hype. That's just how we were designed. That's why I take balance of nature. They use a tailored vacuum cold process that stabilizes the phytonutrition in fruits and vegetables. I'll say that again. A tailored vacuum cold process that stabilizes the phytonutrition in fruits and vegetables. So you're getting real whole food nutrition, not synthetic substitutes. Their whole health system includes fruits and veggies plus fiber and spice, 47 ingredients and one simple routine, plus I take it myself. If you want to fight the good fight. P H Y t go to balanceofnature.com to subscribe and save today. Join hundreds of thousands of customers in one simple routine that's changing the world. Go to balanceofnature.com to subscribe. Anna Polina Luna joins us now. Congresswoman, welcome back to the show. You had a very interesting, let's just say time with the Clintons. You were up in New York and you got to be in on that meeting. We now have video clips from that. Why don't you just take us inside the room and give us a sense of what it was like? I mean, that's quite the pair you were discussing.

[Anna Paulina Luna]

Yeah, it's not every day that you get to depose a former secretary and president. But ultimately our sole objective for this is getting justice for the victims. And I think a lot of people, to include ourselves, have been rightfully frustrated because, you know, at a certain point we were promised names. We never received those names. And then also there's this aspect of what we found out. What I really helped to uncover is that a lot of the co conspirators that were given these plea deals were actually some of the women. So these women engaged in what I would say is human rights abuses. They were responsible for trafficking. And then also too, you have a lot of the doctors and physicians that were essentially let off that kind of knew about what was happening. So there's clearly more to be investigated in this. But then also also the aspect of, okay, well, how much did you know Epstein's circle of influence know about what was happening? We saw that the Clintons specifically with the secretary, you know, had a lot of connections there via the Clinton foundation. Although according to her deposition and according to a lot of the statements made by President Clinton, she was somewhat insulated in, I guess, her direct contact. But the president, President Bill Clinton specifically did seem to acknowledge and admit that it was his relationship with Jeffrey to include Glean. That actually kind of is a reason why he should be brought in to testify. And so it was very evident that Secretary Clinton did not want to be there. She, as you saw in some of that footage, lost her temper a few times and was not so. Not so. I don't want to say nice, but just not as cooperative. And they were very difficult to get in. And then you saw kind of when President Clinton came in the next day, it was definitely kind of a shift. He was a lot more, I guess, you know, a lot more forward in his answering. And it did not appear that he was trying to hide the ball. But as you also saw, there was a lot of questioning that, you know, even with. With the secretary, when we were posing questions, a lot of their communication between husband and wife is considered protected communication privilege. So there's a lot that we could not have answered as well.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Well, and, you know, it was just. I had. I have to say, it was just a bit. I thought it was really interesting. I think a lot of people had this experience watching these clips because you see President Clinton kind of still jovial. You could still see all the elements that made him a really talented politician. But he's getting asked about the most salacious details about, you know, it felt very 90s.

[Blake]

And as the joke was made, like, of course, we're bombing a country in the Middle east right now of Bill Clinton is testifying.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Yeah. Meanwhile, Hillary's, like, slamming tables like it's Benghazi all over again. I mean, it was very interesting. Okay, I have to play this one because I just found it funny. And I want to get your reaction for being in the room. This had to make you at least somewhat uncomfortable. Apl384. I never saw anybody do anything wrong.

[Ken Paxton]

I thought they were flight attendants.

[Anna Paulina Luna]

Do flight attendants typically wear tank tops and jeans?

[Ken Paxton]

They don't all wear uniforms on private planes.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Okay, so there was a lot of this, like, who are you getting? Why were you getting massages from young women? Did you find that strange? And he's, you know. And then at one point, somebody shows him a picture of him with some young woman, and the lawyer tries to take it out of his hands, and he grabs it back and he's got this smirk on his face. And I'm going, dude, you're getting deposed by Congress right now. I don't know, I have to wonder, what was that like to see a former sitting US President being asked these Types of questions. Did it make you uncomfortable?

[Anna Paulina Luna]

I mean, look, I straight up asked him about his trip to Africa, where we know that there was one of the victims on that flight. And I should have asked him about Virginia Giuffre's commentary about him going to the island. And when you're sitting there, and obviously no one is above the law, but also, too, part of what I have, and it's become very evident and apparent. And I even confronted both Secretary Clinton and President Clinton with the facts that Jeffrey Epstein was an intel asset. I asked specifically with Secretary Clinton, which he said, you know, it's quite possible he was running a honeypaw operation, which I think is very, very evident at this point. But then, you know, kind of referencing, well, which countries would have a specific interest in, you know, figuring out what President Clinton was doing. Right? And I think just kind of the whole aspect of, you know, he. Once I presented him with the alias and the. And the other identity that Epstein had, you know, he kind of saw that, and you could tell that he was shocked. But then also, too, it goes into kind of like an even more. More weirder space, I guess, because at one point, President Clinton was asked about, did he think that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself? And he was like, well, I think he finally got caught. I really don't know. He was uncomfortable. The attorneys didn't really want him to answer. And then on the flip side, Secretary Clinton, when she was confronted with a similar question, she had said something along the lines of, Jeffrey Epstein died in mysterious circumstances or mysteriously had died. So I think the fact is, is that, you know, they see the writing on the wall. He was obviously a very bad guy. They also know that there's this aspect of intel operation happening. They would be prime targets. You know, Bill Clinton, you can't tell me that, you know, he probably didn't fully know what was going on in the sense that, you know, those were kind of some younger girls, etc, but also, too, I mean, at a certain point, did he. Do we have any evidence right now that he did anything illegal? And the answer is no, according to the deposition and according to, you know, at least the evidence that we have, that's not there. But what was interesting is that the entire time that we were in that room, the Democrats were trying to, you know, basically come up with reasonings to bring in and depose President Trump. And at a certain point, President Clinton actually did exonerate President Trump, which they did not like, and they freaked out about. And then shortly thereafter, I actually also had asked President Trump about a woman who had made a false claim that he had sex tapes out there with some of the victims. And I asked him, in so many words, of would you want oversight to call in a victim like that or an alleged victim that had been proven to be lying? And he said, no, you shouldn't be doing that. And the reason I asked that specifically is because there has also been this attempt with the files to call in President Trump using false claims from people that were not credible witnesses or credible victims. And so I think, you know, it was good that he came in. Do I think that we're ever going to be able to. To get names directly from the Clintons, or were we able to get names directly from the Clintons regarding people that were potentially involved in the trafficking? No. However, when I showed the secretary emails that were some of the most egregious emails that you guys probably all saw and read on the Internet, and she read them, and then I said, do you think that this person should be called? And she said, yes, well, that individual who was writing those emails, that was a woman. And so I am going to be pushing. And I've already talked to Chairman Comer and I think there is support for bringing in the co conspirators that were given lesser plea deals because they should have to answer for that, in addition to some of the other individuals that knew and potentially were even treating these victims because they did not report the trafficking.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Yeah, that falls in line with a lot of Blake's thinking, actually. You know, women were accomplices in this. And that's a big part of how Jeffrey Epstein got these young women to be surrounding him and these other rich guys is they used Virginia Gifrey as an example of that. She lured in underage women, told them to wear makeup and act and lie about their age. Totally nasty stuff.

[Anna Paulina Luna]

But I think that there's also a big difference, though, between someone that's coaxed into doing something as a minor versus someone that continues to do it for years, of course, as an adult and is getting paid to do it. And they are no longer co, you know, victims. They would then become co conspirators and traffickers. And so I think that that's a big difference. And, you know, a lot of people for a long time, I think, don't really realize that we were promised names. They said, we, when we interviewed some of the victims, they said, we will give you names. And we have not yet received those names. And so that's why, I guess it's kind of frustrating. And I understand that people have been failed by the justice system previously, but we are still trying to at least ensure that people, if they were trafficking, let's bring them in and we want to at least expose this and then it's up to the Department of Justice on whether or not they're going to prosecute. But the fact is, is that there's. This has become so politicized with the attempts to try to basically make it look like President Trump was trafficking people, which we know he's been exonerated by the victims by multiple AGs, by literally President Bill Clinton. And so it seems like some of it's being lost in translation. But, yeah, it was definitely, definitely quite the experience. I did not expect Hillary Clinton to lose her cool like that. And I was shocked. There was a couple times that she was kind of, you know, getting irritated being there. Total 180 out from President Bill Clinton.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Well, APL, we've got alliance of Sovereign nations coming up. Can you just quick elevator pitch on what it is? Turningpoint's working with you on it. Tell us about it.

[Anna Paulina Luna]

Yes, Turning Point Action has worked with us to stand up a first ever of its kind event focusing on, I don't say nation building, but really ensuring that countries, specifically European nations that have been so long told that, you know, we need censorship and you need open borders and you need to focus on green energy, really removing the backbone of these countries. This is going to completely flip that on its head. It's a more populous movement focusing on fundamental things like free speech, energy independence, that is nuclear energy and strong immigration policy. And so we have 75 countries from around the world that are in attendance and we're very happy for it.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

It's become all the rage, all of our inquiries right now.

[Tyler Boyer]

It's everywhere.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Yeah, there's so many press want to be inside this room and we're being very much sticklers on who we let in because we want them to derail what is sure to be a really important event. So congrats on putting that together. It's becoming a really big deal. Thank you. And we'll have more to report on that soon. Tyler's been helping you with that and a few others. So, Annapolina Luna, thank you for giving us the update on the Clinton deposition. Got much, much more to uncover there. I'm sure you're going to keep on it. Thanks for joining us today.

[Anna Paulina Luna]

Thanks, guys.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

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 charlie4hillsdale.com to enroll today. That's charlie for hillsdale.com learn deeply. Lead boldly. Carry it forward. All right, so a lot of you were asking for more clips and I wanted to, but Congressman Anna Paulina Luna was going through her experience in the room. So let's you hadn't even seen this clip. This is Bill Clinton essentially from his perspective at least exonerating President Trump. 385 the President never, this is 20

[Ken Paxton]

something years ago, never said anything to me to make me think he was involved in anything improper with regard to Epstein either.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

He just didn't.

[Ken Paxton]

That's the truth. You know, as I said earlier,

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

the

[Ken Paxton]

only conversation I had with President Trump about this was in the early 2000s. And I have no information that he did anything wrong.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

No information that President Trump did anything wrong. I mean, by the way, the timing of that I think is telling early 2000s, this is when they were still friends. President Clinton was much younger then, much sooner just leaving office. And President Trump was not president yet. He was considered a Democrat donor. Was, you know, I think at Chelsea Clinton's wedding. Right. Anyway, so they had interactions. So I think that's very telling. This was the clip that I took note of and I thought it was pretty comical and maybe I'm wrong for thinking that. I don't know. But a lot of people online certainly noticed it. 457.

[Ken Paxton]

Okay.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Mr. President, we have so I, I thought there would be more audio cues

[Tyler Boyer]

there, but a lot of people literally laughing.

[Blake]

That's laughing. But we don't really know what precisely he's laughing.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Yeah. It was flipping through old Epstein photos of him smiling and nodding with I mean because I find he's still a dirty old man.

[Blake]

I find it unlikely that what was going on there is he was saying suddenly tipping his Hand like, oh, yeah, I remember abusing that person.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

No, I think he's. He's sort of laughing at the spectacle of the entire ordeal. But a lot of people found it humorous online because those were apparently pictures.

[Tyler Boyer]

I mean, many people think that he's laughing because, you know, what is out there. What.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

What is.

[Tyler Boyer]

What he's looking at is. Is far less egregious than what.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Yeah.

[Tyler Boyer]

Is not out there.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Yeah.

[Blake]

It could be like a very real possibility to me is what we've seen over and over is there's a lot of salacious allegations that have come from. They'll release a photo next to someone who's has their face blurred out and they're implying that this was someone they abused, that someone who was underage. And they're neither of those things, of course.

[Anna Paulina Luna]

Yeah.

[Blake]

And so he might look at this photo and be like, oh, that's a 28 year old person that I interacted with or something like that.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Sure. Yeah. I mean, interact.

[Tyler Boyer]

It's putting it very.

[Blake]

It might, it might literally just be that these are just the. All of these are just photos that people took. Like, they're not secret photos, they're not blackmail photos as far as we know. They just seem to be any photo you might take, like with your phone today if you're at a party.

[Tyler Boyer]

I mean, certain certainly, Blake, a sitting president that leaves office and immediately is flying down with imagery that is being produced and put in front of him. That's, that's, that is not exactly. Especially when we rewind back to the 90s. Like I get today, like 90s thing

[Blake]

to me, I was only 10 when the 90s.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Well, you know, it's okay. I don't think we know what.

[Tyler Boyer]

No one, not even no one was okay with any of this. Like, nobody has ever. Like the fact that like society has. Has been degraded into something where it's like, oh, this isn't that big of a deal. And I get it. Totally jaded. Everyone's jaded now. Whatever.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Okay.

[Tyler Boyer]

At the time, at the time period, if those images would have come out, it would have been. It would have been. It would have been the most important thing on the news for three years.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Well, kind of like when Clinton had his intern run in with Monica Lewinsky. So this is funny. I don't have the clip here and I just remembered it, so I didn't call for it, but they were asking about, why do you hang out with all these young women? He's like, well, that's wrong. I don't hang out With. I don't typically hang out with younger women and all this stuff. And they go, would you consider an intern young? And he goes, you can see his whole face is like, well, you got me there. Never gonna live that one down. He goes, yes, interns are young. Let me just play one from Hillary, because she's just got a vibe here. 386.

[Anna Paulina Luna]

When you saw photos of your husband in a hot tub, laying on a beach and getting massaged by other women, and you knew that Jeffrey Epstein was involved in some of these trips and

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

these things, did it concern you at all?

[Anna Paulina Luna]

I'm here not to offer my opinions.

[Charlie Kirk]

I'm here to answer specific questions to

[Anna Paulina Luna]

the best of my ability. When you saw your husband in these

[Charlie Kirk]

photos of the young woman being massaged,

[Anna Paulina Luna]

what went through your mind?

[Charlie Kirk]

I am not going to speculate.

[Tyler Boyer]

She's a. I don't think that's speculation. I think it's just. That's a direct question of how did you feel about that?

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

I mean, I, I, Legally, she's a smart gal. She did the right thing, right, because they're trying to get salacious details, et cetera, et cetera. But anyways, yeah, she ended up. There was a whole photo leak situation with, I believe, Lauren Boebert. Congresswoman Lauren Boebert out of Colorado leaked a picture. They found out that she leaked it during the hearing. She slammed her fists on the table, and it was quite the moment. I believe we just about have it loaded up here, but it literally all of us turned and looked at each other and were like, that was Benghazi. That was a total Benghazi moment. Hillary Clinton has not changed. You can take the woman out of Washington, but you can't take the Washington out of the woman. New York, wherever. Something like that. Something like that.

[Tyler Boyer]

It's a scary cross between Washington and Arkansas is what it is.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

It's steeped in power for years. Scary cross. All right,458.

[Anna Paulina Luna]

Excuse me, can I interrupt?

[Charlie Kirk]

Photos that are being released of the

[Anna Paulina Luna]

secretary as she is testifying from inside this room. Can you please advise me as to

[Charlie Kirk]

whether or not that's permissible and consistent

[Anna Paulina Luna]

with the rules, particularly given that we have asked for a public hearing.

[Charlie Kirk]

If there are photos that are being

[Anna Paulina Luna]

released of the secretary, she is testifying. Can you please explain how that.

[Charlie Kirk]

I'm done with this. If you guys are doing that, I am done. You can hold me in contempt from now until the cows come home.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

Home.

[Charlie Kirk]

This is just typical behavior. We will go off the record. Oh, for heaven. So I would like to understand how that's permissible. It doesn't matter. We all are abiding by the same rules.

[Anna Paulina Luna]

I. I will take that down. Yeah, well, I would like to take

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

a break at this moment.

[Anna Paulina Luna]

I'd like to have for now.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

And on that note, we are done. We'll see you tomorrow. Oh, Hillary, I don't want to feel

[Blake]

bad for Hill or Glinton.

[Charlie Kirk (Host)]

For more on many of these stories

[Charlie Kirk]

and news you can Trust, go to charliekirk.com.