Transcript
A (0:00)
Hey everybody. Welcome to this episode of the Charlie Kirk Show. The Great Conflation. How the media is conflating peaceful Trump supporters with people that did things that quite honestly we have denounced and that no one supports. Email us your questions freedomarliekirk.com support our program at charliekirk.com support this episode is brought to you by Express VPN Fight Big Tech and Big Brother at expressvpn.com Charlie, the great Conflation is here. Buckle up everybody. Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point usa. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives. And we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here with the Turning Point USA movement. I have the honor of traveling to college campuses and engage in rigorous debate with the next generation. When you talk to as many students as I do, there are several familiar themes. I see disillusionment with the media, a lack of hope in their job prospects, and I hear them claim that they're victims and deserve better. Whether college students realize it or not, they are forming ideologies that will affect the way they think and and treat others for a lifetime. I like to recommend a great book to any young person in this time of life. It's called Reflections on the Existence of God by the best selling author Richard Simmons iii. This guy doesn't shy away from the hard questions of life. Reflections on the Existence of God is a collection of short essays that tackle the biggest questions of all. Does God exist? This book is well researched and easy to read. One of the most important things a young person can do is solidify their worldview. Our worldview informs our personal, social and political lives. It helps us understand our purpose. So I'm challenging college students to ask themselves life's toughest questions. Dive in. It's a great book. You gotta check it out. Reflections on the Existence of God. Go to reflectionscharlie.com reflectionscharlie.com and then email me freedomarliekirk.com your thoughts on the book. Reflectionscharlie.com hey everybody. Charlie Kirk here with Isabel Brown from Turning Point usa. Not that there's a lot happening in our country right now, but we'll try to make the most of the slow news cycle right now. Pelosi to move forward with impeachment if Pence doesn't act. Politico from Meredith McGraw and Daniel Lippman. Democrats will immediately move to force the president from office for his role in inciting violent riots at the Capitol. Now, this is the Politico piece. This implies that President Trump did incite violent riots at the Capitol. That is hotly debated. In fact, the Wall Street Journal has come out with a piece that is very good that said, no, the president did not do such a thing. We'll get to that in a second. But Pelosi has made it very clear in a letter to her members that if Pence refuses to act, Democrats will immediately move to force Trump from office for his role in, quote, inciting violent riots of the Capitol on Wednesday. They repeat it three times in just the first couple paragraphs here. And so what we've seen here is now that House Democrats have given an ultimatum of sorts. They have said that if Vice President Pence does not enact the 25th Amendment, which the vice president can enact with the agreement of cabinet officials to remove the president of the United States, then she will have an impeachment vote on the House floor. This would not be the first impeachment fight. As many of you know, the first impeachment fight was nine, about a year ago, when Adam Schiff and the crew decided to impeach President Donald Trump over a simple phone call. And so a lot of this is around the inciting of violence. Now, what does that exactly mean to incite violence? That is something that is really open for interpretation. I want to get into the incitement timeline. But first I want to get, because there's a, there's a lot wrong with how the Democrats have been portraying this. But first I want to read about from this great piece in the Wall Street Journal from Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, no, Trump isn't guilty of incitement. House Democrats have drafted an article of impeachment that accuses President Trump of, quote, incitement to insurrection. Acting U.S. attorney Michael Sherwin said Thursday that his office is, quote, looking at all actors here and anyone that had a role in the Capitol riot. Some reporters have constructed that as including Mr. Trump, but it continues by saying the president didn't commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As the Washington prosecutor, I earned the nickname, quote, protester prosecutor from the anti war group Code Pink. In one trial, I convicted 31 protesters who disrupted congressional traffic by obstructing the Capitol crypt. In another, I convicted a Code Pink activist who smeared her hands with fake blood, charged at the then Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice in a House hearing room, and incited the audience to seize the Secretary of State physically. In other cases, I dropped charges when the facts fell short of the legal standard of incitement. This is what it says. Hostile journalists and Lawmakers have suggested Mr. Trump incited the riot when he told a rally that Republicans need to, quote, fight much harder. Mr. Trump suggested the crowd walk to the Capitol. Quote, we're going to cheer on brave senators and congressmen and women and, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you'll never take back your country with weakness. You have to show strength. You have to be strong. Now, Josh Shapiro continues by saying in D.C. it's a crime to, quote, intentionally or recklessly act in such a manner to cause another person to be in reasonable fear or, quote, to incite or provoke violence when they're in a likelihood that such violence will ensure. But here is where it continues. The president didn't mention violence on Wednesday, much less provoke or incite it. This is from Jeff Shapiro, who is the former prosecutor, U.S. attorney for D.C. and then it goes on to say the president's critics want him charged for inflaming the emotions of angry Americans. That alone does not satisfy the elements of any criminal offense. Therefore, his speech is protected by the Constitution that members are sworn to support and defend. Isabel, what do you make of all this?
