Eric Bolling (1:32)

Hey, thanks, Andre. Hey, Blake. What's going on, guys?

Andrew Colvett (1:35)

So let me just read part of Trump's truth, and we're going to get your analysis on this. So he says Israel, out of anger for what has taken place in the Middle east, has violently lashed out at a major facility known as South Pars Gas Field in Iran. Relatively small section of the hole has been hit. The United States knew nothing about this particular attack. And the country of Qatar. Qatar has. Was in no way, shape or form involved with it, nor did it have any idea that it was going to happen. All right, so this has now been, I would say, contradicted by Israeli officials that says actually the US did know about it. And there's a little bit of back and forth on that. We're not sure what to make of this at this point. I'm loath to call President Trump a liar. So something's going on here. Eric, do you have any insight as to what the true story here is?

Eric Bolling (2:26)

Well, Andrew, I've been doing this for nearly 40 years. The oil, I've been through Gulf wars, I've been through massive geopolitical stresses in the Middle East. And when it involves producing country or countries in the Middle east, oil is always going to be at the center of it. I'm positive. I know Pete Heck said very well. I'm positive. Trump knew that any sort of attack on sort of Iranian oil infrastructure would cause prices here in the United States to spike even further. Any attack in the Middle east is going to do it, but when you hit the oil infrastructure, it's a big mistake. I doubt Trump would have sanctioned hitting an oil infrastructure in Iran. In fact, Besson today came out and said, look, we may even allow Iranian ships to navigate the, the Strait of Hormuz. Now look, that this is, you know, a couple, couple of days after the fact. However, the, the price shock that's happening is because you're talking about Iranian oil. Iranians produced 3 million barrels of oil and, and that what they did in response to the, to the Israeli attacks is they started hitting other Gulf state oil platforms, refineries, et cetera. And this is all leading to the nervousness, the jitteriness of the energy markets driving prices up. We're going to hit $4 a gallon probably over the weekend. We may go to five if this continues, we could actually go to $5 a gallon. Trump, he's an ease, he's a good businessman, but he also, he's a good economist. In his mind. I think he probably saw the effect of hitting those oil infrastructures in Iran was a bad idea. And I tell you what happened just hours ago. Iran turned around and either targeted, certainly hit the Israeli refinery with the biggest refinery in Israel as a retaliatory measure. Now they're saying it may be shrapnel, but who knows if they, they may have missed and shrapnel hit the refinery. But there's a refinery shut in right now. So once you start playing around infrastructure, all bets are off on how oil prices could go.

Andrew Colvett (4:23)

Yeah, well, so let's, let's get Pete Hegseth. He was asked about it this morning. Sat 17. So with the strike yesterday on South Par's gas field, you know, if the US didn't know about it or didn't approve of it, it kind of seems like a trend of Israel apparently pursuing their own objectives over US objectives.

Eric Bolling (4:41)

Why are we helping Israel prosecute this

Andrew Colvett (4:43)

war if they're going to pursue their own objective?

Charlie Kirk (4:46)

We hold the cards. We have objectives.

Alex Marlow (4:50)

Those objectives are clear.

Andrew Colvett (4:52)

We have allies pursuing objectives as well. And the truth speaks for itself.

Alex Marlow (4:56)

I mean, President Trump was very clear about that.

Charlie Kirk (4:58)

Iran has weaponized energy for decades.

Alex Marlow (5:02)

Israel clearly sent a warning and POTUS

Charlie Kirk (5:04)

has made it clear, very clear.

Alex Marlow (5:06)

Iran knows when you hit Carg island and you hit military capabilities on Karg

Charlie Kirk (5:12)

island, which is the only thing we hit, we can hold anything at issue, anything. The United States military controls the fate of that country.

Andrew Colvett (5:21)

So what he's saying is we clearly have Israeli objectives, our allies have objectives, the US has other objectives. But the bottom line here is, Eric, it's causing this really, I think strange oil market. And this is really where you bring a lot of expertise here. Go up, go ahead and throw up. It looks like we're having the emergence of essentially three different, three distinct oil markets. Asia through Oman and Dubai. Europe, Brent and us West Texas. Right. Wti.

Eric Bolling (5:53)

Correct.

Andrew Colvett (5:54)

What the heck is happening and why this huge price gap between the different oil.

Eric Bolling (5:59)

That's simply so look at oil, kind of look at the world global oil reserves. We use about 100 million barrels a day globally, all countries included. The difference in the price between those three. And by the way, there's probably 50 grades of crude oil. But the main, the three main benchmark, they call them benchmarks, is all prices are determined based on those. Well, I would say two Brenton, wti, West Texas Intermediate. That's the oil we produce. We produce 13 million a day. We use 20 million. We have a gap. We have to import oil from Canada, China, not China, Canada, Mexico and others. The Brent is higher. And Andrew, I've done this a long time for the past 15 years. The difference between Brent oil, it's always higher because of location and transportation because it's produced way up north in the North Sea. In order to bring it down, there's transportation costs but the, the difference has always been $5 at the maximum, $1 or $2 at the minimum. They run very close in price. Now it's 16, 17, could be pushing $18 a barrel difference. And that's because getting that oil from the North Sea through certain areas of Europe is having a very hard time getting enough oil. China is as well, but they have deals with Russia and whatnot. But Europe is going to be very, very sensitive to price shock gasoline price shocks. For sure they're equivalent of a gallon. They use liters. But over there are equivalent. They're probably going to hit $10 a gallon of gasoline before probably within the next couple of weeks.

Charlie Kirk (7:36)

So Eric, I think a lot of people have noted, okay, the prices are surging more in other places compared to the US And I've seen some people present this as that means it's no big deal. For us, but maybe give us a sense. Like my feeling is that if we have a giant energy spike everywhere outside the U.S. even if we're self sufficient in our own energy, that's going to have pretty severe ramifications for our own country and, and our own economy. Correct.

Eric Bolling (8:01)

100%. We are absolutely sensitive to the price of Brent oil going up. Even though it's going up a little bit more. It is up. So before the conflict, I would say a week before we hit Iran, oil was $65 a barrel. The day before we hit Iran, it was $67 a barrel. The day afterwards. It started the week after one, Friday after the, we hit them on Saturday. By Friday it was $76 a barrel. It's, it's going to hit $100 a barrel before the end of this week. So we are very, very sensitive. Even though we're not as sensitive to the, the, the, the Brent price, we're still, it brings all. Here's why, only very quickly. I know you got to go, but because if you, at some point, if you running Brent oil and it's too expensive, you can retool your refinery to use WTI if it makes sense to transport, transport it at a cheaper rate.

Andrew Colvett (8:54)

So we've got, you know, a news that was breaking this morning that it looks like Japan, who by the way, the Prime Minister of Japan is meeting with President Trump. The White House, currently Japan, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, Great Britain, they're all going to start working with us. It looks like a bit of about face to help clear the Strait of Hormuz. Is that going to fix the problem or are we still looking at inflationary upward pressure from this, this oil spike?

Eric Bolling (9:23)

Yeah. So $4 is baked in the cake. 450 is probably baked in the cake already. Maybe five. And, and by the way, we haven't entered the Strait of Hormuz. Our navy hasn't yet because it's not safe. Iranians have a lot of tools. They can, they can lob missiles from the shore. Look at that shoreline top of that, that map right there, that is all Iranian shoreline. They can shoot missiles from anywhere. They've also said that they can mine the Gulf. Trump says there's no mines in the Gulf. But I've seen confirmed video of Iranian submersible drones that are mines and that they can remotely control from, from land. And there's hundreds of them that they haven't put in the water yet, which they could still do. Iran's in an existential threat right now. They're Literally looking at the, possibly the end of Iran as anyone's known it. And they probably feel that way on the inside right now. They're liable to do anything. And what they're doing right now is attacking other Gulf countries petrochemical production. They hit Saudi Aramco's refinery. They that Saudi Aramco final, one of the biggest refineries in the Middle east is shut in Kuwaitis shut in a refinery. They've hit Bahrain production. You just mentioned a gas field in Iran being being hit by the Israelis. This is massive, massive oil disruption. I had a captain on my show yesterday and not even a captain. He owned the shipping company, has 15 ships going through the Strait of Hormuz. And I said captain, have you put one through? He said no. I said, why not? He said, too dangerous. I said, okay, Trump administration has come up with a $20 billion Lloyd's of London insurance policies. Does that change the thing? I knew what his answer was going to be. Does that change anything? He said, no. I said, why not? Because I'm no one I know nor would I ever send a crew through the Strait of Hormuz just because there's insurance in case they get blown to smithereens. It's not safe. And if the Iranians, all they have to do is threaten or show one or two mines, you don't know where they're going to be, there's not going to be a lot of confidence in navigating that Gulf. I personally think we should put our boot on Iranians neck, go into every industry they have. It's going to be collateral damage. It's going to be really bad for the Iranian people. Take out their media, take out all their infrastructure, take out their highways, get them to the point where they submit and they say we'll cut a deal with you for oil. And what I would say was I would send our oil companies in, our major oil companies in and bring their production up. They're doing less than half of what they could possibly do potentially do. We bring that oil price, their oil volume up and we take that oil at the market price, Iran stays whole, we get oil independence opportunity.

Andrew Colvett (12:00)

Wouldn't that just strengthen the regime. Sorry to cut you off there, Eric. Wouldn't that just strengthen the regime's hand if there's hope that they're going to topple? There was, there's a, there's press conference going on right now in the White House and you know, Scott Besson is saying that the regime is already wiring money all over the world treasuries on top of it, they're going to seize the money. They, they're still, the Trump administration is still signaling that this regime's about to collapse. ERIC so, so they may be on their heels.

Eric Bolling (12:29)

ANDREW I find it hard to believe that they're about to collapse. I mean, they still have a lot of fight left in them, even if it's fight to the death, which they will do at this point, because this is their existential threat. They're not going to just decide we're going to roll over. I believe you cut a deal with them, an international legal deal with them where they can't ever back out of it and we are energy independent forever. I mean, are we really in the business of making sure countries aren't nuclear weaponized? I mean, North Korea had become under, under Clinton. How about Pakistan? Are we going to go take out Pakistan because they have nukes? I mean, it's, it's, it's a fool's game. This is over oil. This isn't over regimes or nukes. This is about oil.

Charlie Kirk (13:15)

ERIC Just the natural question that follows up then is maybe how much time. Like you've mentioned, obviously there's a lot of economic pressure coming from this. What sort of timeline are we looking at for economic issues escalating, where we need to start taking, you know, how long do we have before we really need to get this wrapped up?

Eric Bolling (13:34)

Do you think it's acute right now? BLAKE Right now we're, we're on a path to higher, higher prices, oil prices, gasoline prices matter. If it, if it's all clear decided today, we're still going to see substantially higher prices going forward. All these Gulf countries that are major producers of energy have shut their production and some of them are damaged, some of them have, have shut down systems that could take 30, 45 days to get re retooled, get re up running again to full capacity. That energy of that those hydrocarbons off the oil market will keep prices higher. Will they stay at $100 a barrel? Maybe not, but they could stay at 90, 85. $85 a barrel turns into about like 350 a gallon gasoline that is just way, way too high when it should be in the 50s. Trump had it almost near 50. Think about this for one second. I would, I'm, I'm skeptical, skeptical enough to believe that all Saudis, Bahranis, Omanis, all the Iraqis, they're all kind of saying, hey, Trump, go ahead. You know, we got you, we, we support you. But the reality is they like a Hundred dollar print on the oil market. They love that. They actually need that. So they're going to be in no rush to ramp up production because the minute they start ramping up, prices come down. So they will slow walk that on the way down. So I think we're, I think we're in dire straits already, Blake. And just how, how bad it gets is, is kind of up to the policymakers in D.C. eric, what are we

Andrew Colvett (15:05)

looking at in terms of inflation? You know, the, they held the rate again, steady. What, what, what are you seeing coming down the pike?

Eric Bolling (15:13)

Yeah, we're at 3%, which is a little bit elevated right now and higher than we had been for the second half of 2025. I think 4 or 4, 4 and a 5%. Given this event, if it lasts another month, 6%. Oil is tied to every single product that we use. Andrew, you just sipped a cup. There's oil, there's a petroleum input, some somehow in there as well. It's in almost every single toilet paper. There's petroleum in toilet paper. And don't forget, anything you produce in one part of the country to the other, bring it to the other part. You got to transport it and you do it with rail or truck. Those are, that's diesel fuel right there.

Andrew Colvett (15:50)

Eric Bolling, Time is of the essence. It's. You made the case for urgency. Thanks, Eric. We'll talk to you soon.

Eric Bolling (15:57)

Thank you guys. Appreciate it.

Andrew Colvett (16:01)

You know, we spend a lot of time on this show talking about culture, about why strong families matter, why values matter, why faith matters. But here's something practical. If you actually want to build a strong family someday, you have to start by meeting someone who shares those same values and convictions. And in today's culture, that's not always easy. A lot of apps are built around casual connections, instant gratification, no long term vision. And that's just not what many of you are looking for. You want something better. That's why I like Upward. Upward is a dating app designed around faith and shared values. People who care about commitment, integrity, marriage and family. You're starting from common ground instead of trying to negotiate your core beliefs three months later into the relationship. That kind of clarity really matters. If faith is central to your life, or even if it's something that shaped how you were raised and how you see the world. Upward connects you with people who take that seriously. If you're tired of the confusion and you're ready to date with intention, with marriage and family in mind, download Upward and start building on the right foundation. Because strong relationships don't just happen by accident. They start with shared values. Download the Upward app today. All right, John Solomon joins us now. John, it's great to have you back because there's so much news going on, especially on the intel front. I gotta hit this first, though, before I wanted to talk to you about China. We will get there in just a second. But there was kind of a bombshell. So obviously everybody's aware that Joe Kent resigned. The letter we talked about on the show yesterday, and then this comes out yesterday evening and I'll play a clip here. Well, let's not actually skip it. Basically, he's under investigation for leaking classified documents. The investigation is being led by the FBI and apparently the investigation started before his resignation. What do you know? John Solomon?

John Solomon (17:57)

Yeah, that is an accurate description of what we know. Several months ago, the FBI began examination, examining a potential leak of information and technology that they believe is connected to Joe Kent or his office. That has been ongoing. It is nearing a resolution and it's in that period of time when it's nearing a resolution. Often when you get to this point, you get a notification that you're either a subject or a target of the investigation. Target means you're about to be indicted. Subject means your behavior is being examined. It's usually around the time of resolution that you get those notifications. Now, we don't know if that happened, but we are told that the decision on whether charges are to be brought is going to happen soon. This does go back into last year. Late in 2025 is when the investigation allegedly began. And then all of a sudden on Monday, he dropped that bombshell of a letter. And you know, again, when you look at the whole of Joe Kent, no matter what happens in this outcome, he's a man who was deployed 11 times to combat zone in Iraq and Afghanistan. He's an American hero for doing that. He lost his wife to a combat attack. She also was an American patriot and lost. That part of his career stays intact. But if you go into the civilian side and you're trusted with intelligence and you don't handle it properly, there are going to be consequences, particularly in this administration, which is very serious about prosecuting links. And so we'll have to wait and see what the evidence is. But there was an investigation ongoing before he ever released his letter expressing his dissent for the Iran operation.

Andrew Colvett (19:31)

Yeah, Tulsi was asked about this. DNI Tulsi Gabbard sought 27 do you

Lydia Moynihan (19:36)

agree or disagree with what this letter

Andrew Colvett (19:38)

was put out by former Director Kent.

Lydia Moynihan (19:42)

He said A lot of things in that letter. Ultimately, we have provided the President with

Andrew Colvett (19:48)

the intelligence assessments and the President is

Charlie Kirk (19:52)

elected by the American people and makes

Lydia Moynihan (19:54)

his own decisions based on the information that's available to him.

Andrew Colvett (19:57)

But do you agree with, does that

Charlie Kirk (19:59)

statement he made blaming Israel concern you?

Andrew Colvett (20:02)

Yes. So that was a pretty significant moment there, John Solomon, that, that, because a lot of people link Dni Tulsi Gabbard with Joe Kent thinking that they are ideologically in lockstep. That was a break right there.

John Solomon (20:17)

Yeah, that was a very significant moment. Now, I would have preferred if they followed up saying you're concerned because you agree with his assessment on Israel, you're concerned that he made it. There's some ambiguity about what yes meant, but I think we generally have a sense of where Tulsi Gabbard stands. Based on the last 48 hours of testimony, she has not endorsed the President's decision. She puts it at his doorstep. And yesterday, when given the opportunity to I think coherently and cohesively describe the intelligence of what led the President, I don't think she did a very good job. I think Pete Hegseth and General Kaine this morning in their briefing did a much better job describing the threat and what would lead a President to believe that there was an imminent threat from Iran. These are the things that we wrote about this morning, all of it in open source intelligence, but they're pretty serious things. In January, the United States government discovered three Revolutionary Guard members on our soil. And I will tell you that Revolutionary Guard members from Iran don't come here for winter vacation. They were sent here for a mission. They were forcibly deported very quickly. Then we learned that Iran had secured a half billion dollars of Stinger missiles from Russia. These are shoulder fired missiles capable of taking down a civilian or military aircraft, a capability that Iran traditionally has not had. Then we learned that they were trying to get and were at the final stages of negotiation in acquiring a hypersonic missile from China that would be able to reach much further American assets outside the immediate Middle east theater, the immediate Persian Gulf. And by the way, hypersonics, we don't have a great defense system against this. Those components, along with the fact that Iran admits itself it tried to reconstitute its nuclear program as soon as the Midnight Hammer was launched last summer, were the components that drove the President to decide that American assets were increasing risk. And to do that, it isn't some magical spell that Bibi Netanyahu has over the President. Anyone who knows the President knows he makes his mind up on his own, often to the shock of some people not ready for what he's about to do.

Andrew Colvett (22:23)

Well, John, I mean, you know, to be fair to Tulsi, you could look at the same intel here and come up with different conclusions. I don't think it's any shocker that maybe Tulsi is less interventionist than some within the. Admiral. I agree. Yeah, so.

John Solomon (22:41)

But her job wasn't to. What I would say is, when you serve a president, your job isn't to express your own political opinion or try to give yourself. Your job is to tell the committee, what data points did the President have to make decisions. Listen, I think it's perfectly great in America to disagree with a decision your president makes. That's our lawful right to do. It wasn't easy to do under the Biden years. They tried to suppress us lots of times, but in the Trump era, no one's going to stop you from expressing your opinion. But her job as the intelligence chief was to give the data points, and there are data points. You can disagree whether that constitutes an imminent threat, but the opportunity yesterday was to give those data points. We were able to give those data points. I don't think she did as good a job as she could and I think there was a little bit of virtue signaling going on. When I've covered scores of these hearings over my career, I have never seen an intelligence chief that couldn't put the intelligence in front of the Congress. She could even say she disagreed with it, but she should have at least told us what the intelligence was. We now have those data points, but I think it would have been helpful for people to know what the data was.

Andrew Colvett (23:42)

Yeah, fair enough. Let's change our. Our focus here. There is so. So one of these storylines is this China interfering in our elections. Tell us what you've uncovered in your reporting, John.

John Solomon (23:54)

First, we need to remind people because they probably didn't get a lot of coverage here, but two years ago, Great Britain was thrust into national crisis when it was learned that China had hacked into parts of their own election voter registration database. Just people how they register their data because it does have your driver's license, your Social Security number or other personal identifying. Great Britain was enormously alarmed. People were fired, there were big hearings and blue ribbon commissions, new election security provisions were done. And by the way, the Biden administration expressed enormous alarm that this happened to Great Britain. And they even indicted some of the hackers from China that did this to China, did this to Great Britain. Here's the dirty secret that the Biden administration and the U.S. intelligence Committee knew when they were expressing outrage at what happened in Great Britain. It happened here all the way back to 2020. But it was kept a secret from the American public, from the Congress, and it appears from the statements of an intelligence community ombudsman, a civilian that's supposed to protect our interests in the intelligence community, because the ombudsman said that the intelligence community, the CIA and others decided to keep this information from the president, the public and the Congress because they didn't like President Trump and his policies. They actually used pejorative terms to describe the commander in chief in their own private emails. And they made a decision to put their personal politics ahead of their country. And their commander in chiefs need to know, and they just didn't let the country know. So America and Great Britain suffered the same crisis. Americans were kept in the the dark. Great Britain reacted with great alarm. I think that's a very. We have to get to the bottom of this politicization of these intelligence agencies. We talk about it in the context of Russia collusion and the fake scandal there. But when you start depriving a president or the intelligence committees of actionable intelligence, you're moving to a point of harming national interest. And that is what the ombudsman in the Biden era decided to allege in a document that we made public this week.

Andrew Colvett (25:54)

So it then kind of goes to Fulton County. Right. So again, Dni Tulsi Gabbards testifying before the Senate and then say the House, and she obviously was photographed at that Fulton county raid. Do we. What do we know about her presence there specifically?

John Solomon (26:12)

I don't think the criminal case here ties to this China stuff. I think the criminal case here ties to the fact that if you, an election administrator in Georgia or Maricopa county in Arizona, where we also have some investigation going on, and you don't follow your state laws, you don't create equal protection for your voters, it becomes a federal crime. And so the FBI's interest in Georgia and Arizona was simply to signal that they may prosecute local election administrators because they didn't follow the law, they created exemptions or didn't do things the way the law in their state required, and that becomes a federal offense if it's intentional. I think that's all. I don't know why she showed up. I know of no reason she needed to be there other than maybe the president asked her to show up, is what I've been told. That's fine. What we do know is that Tulsi Gabbard has known about this Chinese election intelligence for about eight months and only recently began moving in a direction of declassifying it under pressure from just the news. We've been asking daily to for about seven weeks now for Tulsi Gabbard to make this available. The first documents we got were not declassified by Tulsi Gabbard. They were declassified by Avril Haines, her predecessor in the Biden administration. The Biden administration and former Biden administration officials were much more willing to talk about how shocked they were that Trump knew, or Trump people knew about this Chinese infiltration and didn't act on it back then. They were glad to throw some shade on that. But this is a serious matter because the second you know that China got voter registration data, what we learned a few months ago from our reporting about what the FBI learned becomes more important. All right? Voter data is accessed by Chinese intelligence. Then China sends driver's licenses to Chicago O' Hare report. And the FBI's Chinese intelligence sources tell them it was an effort to send those licenses here so someone could file fake ballot requests and vote and stuff the ballot box for Joe Biden. That's what the FBI documents. So we're starting to see a continuum. That doesn't mean that anything ultimately happened, but it was a more organized effort than we were led to believe. And the reason we were not given this information was a political decision by some biased intelligence analysts that should concern us all.

Andrew Colvett (28:25)

Yeah, that is concerning. I mean, I think Tulsi Gabbard is a star. I trust her motivations here are, you know, her political calculations. But I think you're absolutely right. The American people have an interest in knowing as much as we possibly can about election integrity.

John Solomon (28:42)

She could be a star next week if she declassifies them.

Eric Bolling (28:44)

Yeah.

Andrew Colvett (28:45)

Well, amen. All right, thanks, John.

Charlie Kirk (28:49)

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 guardians guide.

Andrew Colvett (29:58)

All right, I want to tell you guys, we got some great news. A lot of bad stuff going on in the world. But meanwhile, Turning Point Action is working behind the scenes. And I wanted to make sure we called this out today. We are launching and opening a new office, a new field office in Nevada. Right. So Turning Point Action. You see the beautiful logo there? Our field office is now open in the state of Nevada. Why is this important? Because we are building what we call the. The red wall. All right, everybody knows about the blue wall. It's Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. It's those three pesky states that Democrats have held for election cycle after election cycle until 2016 and 2024, when we took it back. But we can take those states off the electoral map in a sense, if we win Arizona, which we are massively active in, if we win New Hampshire, which we're massively active in, which a lot of people don't realize, has more registered Republicans than Democrats. You got to win the indies in that state. That's the key. But still, there's more Republicans than Democrats in New Hampshire. And then of course, Nevada, which we took back. And notably, there's more Republicans registered now in Nevada for the first time in many decades, actually probably about 20 years, Democrats have had the registration advantage in Nevada that has now flipped. Republicans now have a small, small advantage. So this is key. So we're hiring now hundreds of staffers in these three states, hundreds and hundreds in each state. And we're combining those with a bunch of thousands of volunteers. So in 2024, we had thousands of volunteers that would come in, link hands with the paid staff, the ballot chasers on the ground, and we created a machine. We know the machine works. Why? Because we borrowed a lot of the best practices from the left that had a two decade head start on us in this arena. And so now we're taking ground. We're catching up. We're building the army that will deliver these three states for 2026 and hopefully 2028. Build that red wall. Blake, you are a master of history. For those who don't understand the significance of the blue wall and maybe they're not aware of the population shifts to the Sunbelt. Explain why this is important.

Charlie Kirk (32:18)

Yeah, I mean, so basically a lot of blue states have been run badly for a long time. And so that's the first thing you want to start with, is we've got. These people have been fleeing from. And also just deindustrialization, so de industrialization, a lot of other factors. They've driven people out of Illinois, they've driven people out of New York, but they've also driven people out of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan. All of these states have either lost people or they've slowed to a relative crawl. They're not where immigrants move as much. They're not where Americans move to seek opportunity. They've moved, frankly, heavily to mostly Republican controlled states, Florida, Arizona, historically Texas. And every 10 years we have that census. It redraws the lines, it reallocates electoral votes. And you know, back in 1960, when Kennedy won, the biggest state was New York. It had almost 50 electoral votes. It's now only in the 20s, I believe, for how many electoral votes it has. And so the Democrats used to be able to rely on, oh, if we can just win Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania. It's very, very hard for us to lose an election. But we're getting to the point where even if they win all those states, and as we've seen with President Trump, they don't always win them. Even if they win all of those states, they're still not going to be able to win unless they can snag these Sunbelt states. Now, as we all know, kind of californication is a problem that those states used to be rock solid red. They are a lot of them now more purple. Nevada used to vote very consistently Republican. Arizona voted Republican for basically a half century straight, they've gotten more purple. The Democrat plan is flip them and our job is step in there, stop any of that sliding, make them rock solid red, you know, make them kind of like Florida where Florida was trending blue. And we flipped it back the other way.

Andrew Colvett (34:10)

Just Jack Posobuk sending us a note right now. He says, I'm in New Hampshire. Trump signs all over. So that's, that's telling. And people don't realize New Hampshire is kind of like this beacon, this red dot in the New England area where they tend to have a lot of conservative state level. For whatever reason, they're sending Democrats at the federal level. So we want to stop that. And the ROI in New Hampshire is just the potential ROI is really, really favorable for Us, if we spend a relatively small amount, we can get a relatively large impact there. But this is a massive, massive day on the calendar for us having a field office in Nevada. And to Blake's point, how do we do this? We target low propensity, conservative leaning voters. Right? These are people that maybe don't show up all the time, but we need them to show up. And it's going to be an even greater challenge without President Trump on the ballot. So President Trump is one of those polarizing political figures who just happens to draw out the Democrats. They come out to the polls to resist him, and he draws out a lot of low propensity conservative voters as well. Our challenge in 2026 is how do we get these people to the ballot box to keep these seats read, to keep the Republicans in office? Uh, and that's gonna be our challenge. And that's why putting a field office in a place like Nevada is such a big, big milestone. So while all this noise and all this distractions going on and you got feuding people and podcast wars, whatever, we are doing the quiet work, building to make sure that those low prop, conservative, right leaning voters get out to the polls. How do we do that? It's a fusion of relational organizing, data driven, live data updates. Every day when we touch base with somebody, we put a note, we learn more about them and then we build a relationship and we follow up with them. We tell them when the deadlines are, we tell them how to get their ballot in. And every state has different, different rules and we follow the rules of each different state. But this is, this is the way that you actually win elections. This is the hard on the ground work that we're actually doing. So if you want to get involved, go to tpaction.com tpaction.com Tyler and the team are doing an amazing job. There's going to be a whole opening ceremony there in Las Vegas, Nevada today. So please get involved. Check it out. If you want to volunteer, if you want to apply for a job, we are hiring like crazy. So big hat tip to the team there. Show the picture one more time, guys.

Charlie Kirk (36:39)

Yeah, I mean, it's just, I really want to drive that home. It's always what set Charlie apart. There's a lot of people offering takes about politics. There's a lot of people trying to provide ideological vision. Charlie did all of that, but he also always stepped up for the hard work, kind of the thankless work, the tough work of get offices open, build relationships with ordinary people, actually get votes out and he was always great about that. And our goal is to always remain great about that.

Andrew Colvett (37:05)

Yeah. Congratulations to the Turning point action team. Phenomenal work here. Huge milestone. We're going to keep Nevada red. Hi, folks. Andrew Colvett here. I'd like to tell you about my friends over at why Refi. You've probably been hearing me talk about why Refi for some time now. We are all in with these guys. If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call. Maybe you're behind on your payments. Maybe you're even in default. You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore. Yrefi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to 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 wirefi.com that's the letter Y. Then refi.com and remember Y Refi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to yrefi.com and tell them your friend Andrew sent you. I want to welcome to the show Lydia Moynihan. She's a New York Post columnist and you might have seen her in the many viral clips from cnn. Abby Phillips show. I believe it's news night.

Lydia Moynihan (38:28)

News night.

Andrew Colvett (38:29)

News night. All right. Welcome to the show. Lydia. It's great to have you. It's your first time joining us.

Lydia Moynihan (38:34)

I'm so thrilled to be here.

Andrew Colvett (38:35)

I'm so. I'm glad you're thrilled to be here. We're thrilled to have you. So let's just start right there. You are a New York Post columnist. You live in the city and here you are, you're doing Abby Phillip, the Abby Phillip Newsnight show, a show that gets clipped, I think more than potentially any other show. How did this start and what's it like being on set there?

Lydia Moynihan (38:57)

So I've been doing the show now for about six months, I would say. And it's interesting, I think in this world where everyone lives in their own echo chamber with their own algorithm, I think it's actually great television and great to see people on both sides engaging and talking to each other. And it's interesting. I mean, there's times I feel like we're all share something that it's a basic fact to me. And a lot of folks there have never Even heard of it. And I think, you know, the Five on Fox does really well. And people want to see these completely separate echo chambers interact because we live in a country now where you can go about your daily life and be in a complete bubble on social media with the people you interact with in your city and just never be confronted with anything that might challenge your beliefs or your ideas about something.

Andrew Colvett (39:45)

All right, so I have. So you and I actually first exchanged texts right after this. We covered it here on the show. Blake had some. Some hot takes on it as well. And that was, of course, when Abby Phillip repeatedly and mistakenly said that the IED bombing or attempted bombing was targeting the mayor's house. We have to play. We have to put some quotes.

Charlie Kirk (40:07)

What is the New York Times, Andrew?

Lydia Moynihan (40:10)

It wasn't an ied. It was a loose grouping of nails. And, yeah, they didn't call it an id.

Andrew Colvett (40:18)

I don't know why we're simping for terrorists, but that's where we find ourselves. Cut 16.

Charlie Kirk (40:22)

Two Republicans say Muslims don't belong here

Alex Marlow (40:25)

after an attempted terror attack against New York's Mayor Zoran Mamdani.

Charlie Kirk (40:30)

And the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, says nothing really to condemn those comments.

Andrew Colvett (40:35)

Well, there you have it. She would. To be fair, she. She corrected the record. So we got it. We got to be fair to Abby Phillip. Your. Your. She's. She's a colleague of yours. So I want to be respectful. Sat 24 this morning.

Charlie Kirk (40:49)

I issued a correction first thing in

Lydia Moynihan (40:52)

the morning on X for a mistake

Charlie Kirk (40:54)

that I made in last night's show, but I also wanted to do so on air as well. I incorrectly said that the bombs that

Andrew Colvett (41:00)

were thrown by ISIS inspired suspects in

Alex Marlow (41:02)

New York over the weekend were directed at Mayor Mamdani. They were not.

Charlie Kirk (41:06)

I failed to catch and correct that

Lydia Moynihan (41:08)

mistake in real time, and I take

Charlie Kirk (41:10)

full responsibility for that. And while we do make mistakes, it is important to acknowledge and correct those

Alex Marlow (41:15)

errors when they happen.

Andrew Colvett (41:17)

All right. Classy move. You were on the set, though, when that happened. What? I mean, it's not like it wasn't corrected in real time. I think you're the other sort of right of center. Panelists corrected her, and she still missed it. What? Like, what were you thinking as this moment was. Was playing out on tv?

Lydia Moynihan (41:35)

Well, look, again, I think everyone's just in their silo where maybe they don't even know that what they're saying is incorrect. And I think it was great that she. She went out there and did correct it, but I think this is. This is just a bigger problem. Where there isn't really any reality check of what's going on. And I think it's interesting seeing the way that the mainstream media has and has not covered what in my mind is, frankly, one of the most important and most significant stories is the fact that there were four terrorist attacks, I believe all of them by naturalized citizens. So people who were not born here, or in the case of the terrorist attack here in New York, both of those men, their parents were born in Afghanistan, so there's a lot to discuss there. And of course, attacks against Jewish people in a synagogue. There are a lot of things to suss out. And it's interesting in that case, the approach the mainstream media takes is let's talk about Islamophobia. And that's of course not the story. The story is that there's actually terrorist attacks and people are shouting Allahu Akbar, right? They're doing this in the name of religion. And then the angle that is covered. And we saw this, of course, with Zoran Mamdani. I'm sorry to keep harping on him. I know every time we talk I bring him up, Andrew. But this is just the quintessential way of sort of spinning something and making it an accusation that somebody is Islamophobic. So he talked about when he was confronted by the fact that he is very close with Hasan Piker, who believes that America deserved 9 11, he said, didn't address it, basically just said, oh, well, my. My aunt, who may or may not be a real person, she got mean looks on the subway after 9 11. And it's completely failing to address a very important and real and legitimate issue and then just attacking somebody and saying that they're bigoted because they're noticing that this pattern. And that's kind of the approach that we saw obviously with Mamdani. And it's the approach that we're seeing the media takes as well. They're not addressing this issue of, wow, there's a terrorist problem. Americans are in danger right now. They're just saying, oh, anyone who's trying to address that problem is bigoted for noticing it.

Andrew Colvett (43:43)

Blake, what's with the selection bias? You've been in media and journalism. What is the undercurrent? What is the driving motivation for this?

Charlie Kirk (43:52)

I think it's pretty straightforward. There used to be more balance to a lot of institutions in American life. Like the press always leaned liberal. But leaning liberal in even the 60s, where we think of as a left wing time, leaning liberal meant, oh, maybe 70% of them voted for Kennedy and 30% voted for Nixon. But in a lot of these newsrooms at major outlets, we're talking 95, 5, 99 to 1. And it breaks down your ability to think reasonably about things. You don't get questioned. You have a lot of assumptions that don't make sense, but no one's calling you out on them. And there's a lot of, there's a lot of group think that takes over. I've heard accounts, you know, from the New York Times, where here's a classic one from a few years ago. It was pretty obvious right away, for example, when the Rittenhouse shooting happened, that Rittenhouse was engaged in self defense, he didn't do anything wrong. And I've heard stories there were New York Times reporters terrified to even take that assignment because if they had to report that fact, it could destroy their career in the newsroom, because people there were that unhinged. And if you repeat that over and over and over again, and then if you're in a kind of lower IQ area like cnn, they're not quite firing on as many cylinders as the New York Times. You just get these absolutely embarrassing stories where they actually have to come out and admit it because it all seems reasonable to them until they get called out on X or on some other public platform.

Andrew Colvett (45:20)

Yeah, and Lydia, that was my read on that instance, by the way, because all the early reporting was that, you know, it was a bombing outside or attempted bombing outside of the mayor's mansion. So I actually think Abby Phillip just didn't know that she was wrong.

Lydia Moynihan (45:35)

Well, Andrew, I just kind of want to go back to something that Blake was saying about the sort of selection bias. And I think when you think about historically, how we get these people in media kind of telling us what the story is and breaking things down for us, they are in, they go through the university system, which my colleague Isabel Vincent here, the Post, had a great story yesterday just highlighting people who are literally children of IRCG members, are teaching in universities like University of Illinois and Emory. And so you think about you're going through this university system where literal terrorists, children are professors and teaching. And then you go into this other ecosystem, typically in a big city like New York or la, where it's quite liberal, and then all of your colleagues are also thinking the same way as you. So it's just literally from the time you leave your house, no matter who you are, if you're going to an elite university, and then continuing on to get a top job, especially in media in a liberal place like New York or la. You're just not challenged with any of your viewpoints. You're inculcated in something that's extremely left wing and then that just carries on with no one challenging those presuppositions.

Andrew Colvett (46:45)

I couldn't help but find this clip. And you're sitting right next to the person involved in this. This is Lee McGowan. And this, this clip is just, it's a, It's a peach cut 26. So your answer is to continue to let Iran back Hezbollah?

Lydia Moynihan (47:02)

No, that is not my answer.

Andrew Colvett (47:03)

And yet again, all over the. Okay, so someone has to take them. No, it's not a false choice.

Charlie Kirk (47:07)

We did not need to be.

Andrew Colvett (47:07)

It is a real life happy to be in this war. We started a war for no reason.

Alex Marlow (47:12)

We are the bad guys here.

Andrew Colvett (47:13)

We are the bad guys here. That's a, that's a strong. You can be against this war in the first place, just to be clear. But that's quite a thing to say from who is.

Lydia Moynihan (47:26)

That's the issue is again totally valid to challenge what the strategy is and ask questions. But we're seeing on the left, it's like people are rooting for us to fail. It's like people want this to be a disaster. So Donald Trump has egg on his face. That's what it feels like is going on. And I genuinely think, and I know we're going to talk about Mamdani and his wife Rama. There seem to be people and obviously the fact that there are protests and people honoring, holding services to honor the Ayatollah. There are clearly people here who actually do think that America is the bad guy in this war. And of course, in no universe could that be possible. You're looking at a regime that murders people for sport. They just today executed a young man who walked the streets trying to trying to protest back in January. They hang gay people from cranes, they rape women as punishment. They're the largest exporter of terror. Like, let's be very clear, in no universe are we the bad. They're the bad guys through and through. And again, you can debate the war, but there's no way that you could characterize Iran as anything less than the most evil regime on the face of the earth.

Andrew Colvett (48:35)

Yeah, I mean, I think a lot of this is we've let a ton of people, millions of people in our country that hate us and it's the third worlding of the United States and we're, we're living the consequences right now. But probably nowhere as I guess poignant can you Feel that as New York City, your. Your home, where you live. And there's a bunch of reporting now out from the New York Post of Rama Duwadi. I think I got her name right finally. That is the wife, Mayor Mamdani. And you could go up and throw this image up. It says in a series of unearthed social media posts, Ramadu Waji reportedly celebrated Palestinian plane hijacker Leela Khalid. Khalid. Like this is shocking stuff. Yeah, there you go. The New York Post is reporting it. This is, you know, anti Israel activists who called. She's associating with some anti Israel activists who called Jews cockroaches. Has multiple links to Mamdani's family. This is the, you know, it was interesting because we had Coach Tuberville on the show and he said, the enemy is inside the gates now. And it became this huge back and forth with Chuck Schumer. What is going on in New York City and how bad really is this mayor's office?

Lydia Moynihan (49:51)

Well, it's really concerning. And this is on the heels. I mean, there's been a few pretty alarming headlines coming out against about Rama. The most recent one just in the last 12 hours or so is that of course she had liked all of these posts and reposted them on Tumblr, which not a lot of people are on Tumblr anymore. But one, for instance, says American soldiers fighting in imperialist wars are not brave, nor are they fighting for anyone's freedom. They're mercilessly slaughtering third World civilians and fighting to maintain American hegemony. That's just kind of a flavor of the things. And she's also used the N word a lot. Offensive things out there. And it comes on the heels of another report that she was illustrating a children's book, or not a children's book, sorry, illustrating a book written by a woman who said things like, Jews are cockroaches, they're rabid demons, they're sons of Satan. So this is, this is a ongoing issue and we see obviously goes back to when she was a young woman in her teens, but it's continuing. This isn't like one little thing that she said 10 years ago. This is a long seated issue that's extended for decades. And so of course she was lauded and celebrated when Mamdani was first elected, she had this fabulous photo shoot in New York magazine and she was heralded as this artist in Gracie Mansion and she was just so wonderful. And it's interesting to see there hadn't been a lot of sort of oppo research Reporting on her specifically. But now that we're seeing all these things, I'm waiting for New York magazine and some of these other publications that just lionized and celebrated her to come out and say, oh, we apologize for featuring and lauding a woman who likes and reposts things that are extremely. Not even just offensive, but things that are advocating for terrorism.

Andrew Colvett (51:45)

Yeah. Welcome to New York.

Charlie Kirk (51:46)

Yeah, I mean, I feel like. Yeah. And I just want to flag, like, when they say, like, liked post, you know, liked this person who was in the pslf that they're basically the ones who pioneered aircraft hijackings. Like, a big reason I think al Qaeda might have thought, let's hijack planes and fly them into buildings is because this Palestinian group kind of popularized aircraft hijackings as this dramatic political terrorist stunt in the 60s and 70s. They were doing one every few weeks, basically, for a long time.

Andrew Colvett (52:17)

Yeah, yeah.

Lydia Moynihan (52:18)

And then I would also note, too. So it's sort of been a 1, 2, 3 punch. There was also a story last week that came out that she had liked a bunch of pro terrorist, pro Hamas posts. In the wake of October 7th, obviously a horrible day. And to have somebody again who Mamdani cosplays is somebody who cares about everyone in the community, to have someone in Gracie Mansion who's celebrating the murder and the rape of Jews is just. It's beyond. And I would note, you know, you said New York has obviously changed a lot. And in the wake of his election, everyone kept saying, like, oh, how could a city that was, you know, sustained a terrorist attack just two decades earlier vote for this? And it's interesting, among the people who actually have lived here for more than five years, more than 10 years, Mamdani did not win. It was really new people who've been coming here who elected him.

Andrew Colvett (53:12)

Are those newcomers from the US or are we talking immigrants?

Lydia Moynihan (53:17)

No, no, no, no, no, no. Yeah. No. People who have moved here from outside

Andrew Colvett (53:21)

the US we gotta get a handle on our legal immigration system. It's a big theme on this show. Lydia Moynihan, thank you so much. Great to have you. Your first time on the show. We'll have you on again soon, I'm sure. Be well.

Lydia Moynihan (53:32)

Andrew, such a pleasure. Thank you.

Charlie Kirk (53:36)

Hey, everyone, we're excited to tell you about Charlie's favorite supplement. If you experience brain fog, low energy, frequent illnesses, or if you just wake up stiff and achy every day, you've got to try strong cell. Charlie took it every single day. He frequently talked about it on the show, and he even Traveled around the country bringing it with him. For Charlie, strongcell helped keep his mind sharp and focused for all the debates he was engaged in. Strong Cell gives clean, natural energy without jitters, weird spikes or afternoon crashes. It makes you feel like a younger version of yourself. People would often ask Charlie, what is Strong Cell exactly? Strong Cell uses a proprietary delivery of NADH to make sure it goes straight to your cells to help your mitochondria.

Alex Marlow (54:16)

And since there are cells in every

Charlie Kirk (54:17)

area of your body, then healthier cells equals a healthier you. Strong Cell is a nutritional supplement that leverages a remarkable enzyme called nadh. And think of it as the power source for every single cell in your body. With over 30 trillion cells working for you, imagine how great you could feel when they're all functioning at their very best. Unfortunately, as we age, our body's NADH levels naturally decline, leading to all kinds of ailments and health issues linked with poor cellular health. Unlike many supplements that simply mix ingredients and hope for the best, StrongCell has a proprietary delivery system designed to ensure that those ingredients are effectively get into your bloodstream where they can truly make a difference. This is crucial as many supplements on the market are just pretty packaging with no real benefits. Here's the exciting part. You can give StrongCell a try completely risk free. Thanks to StrongCell's 90 day money back guarantee. You can experience this revolutionary product with no worries and no hassles. If it's not for you, no problem. They'll refund your money. With nearly 2 million units sold, it's no wonder that NADH has become a highly sought after remedy. Remember what you put in your body matters and you truly get what you pay for. StrongCell doesn't cut corners. They use the finest ingredients and they adhere to the highest manufacturing standards. So if you're tired of feeling tired, battling brain fog, or just not feeling like yourself, check out StrongCell today. Visit StrongCell.com and use the code CHARLIE for 20% off your order. Charlie always recommended giving StrongCell six to eight weeks to experience its full benefits. So do yourself a favor, get StrongCell today and give it the time it needs to work its magic. That's strongcell.com Charlie. And don't forget to use special discount code Charlie at checkout to get a special 20% off just for Kirk listeners. StrongCell.com Charlie check it out right now.

Andrew Colvett (56:10)

All right, without further ado, honored to have our next guest, Alex Marlowe, Editor in chief of Breitbart News, as well as host of the Alex Marlowe Show. Welco, good to see you.

Alex Marlow (56:20)

Well, great. See you, Andrew. Thank you for having me on the Kirk Show.

Andrew Colvett (56:23)

Listen, man, there's a, there's a lot of stuff we've been going through story after story, but I want to, I want to zoom out on the state of the movement. Right.

Alex Marlow (56:32)

Yeah.

Andrew Colvett (56:32)

There was this poll yesterday that was circulating. CNN had it up. I believe they conducted the poll that said 100% of MAGA supports the President. I just don't believe that that's statistically possible or true. I don't know where they got that from or how they posed the question. But there's no doubt that this Iranian conflict, war excursion, whatever you want to call it is, is, you know, it's a challenge to the movement. You see Megyn Kelly sounding off. You see Tucker Carlson. You have the Joe Kent resignation. There is a lot of noise out there right now. Alex, what, how do you process this? How are you thinking about it?

Alex Marlow (57:13)

Yeah, thank you. Yeah, it's a great, it's a great question to ask because this is the question for the year, because we all want MAGA to endure. We all want to make sure that Americans are safe and prosperous and thriving. And then the question is, is this war that's going on right now, is this getting us closer to that? And I think there's going to be a lot of people who think that the president has earned a lot of credibility. And I'm in that group where he gets a little leeway here. If he feels like he had the imperative and the intelligence to wage a successful war, that he should have a little time to do it. If he's doing his strategic bombings, he's trying to take out high profile targets. And if you look at sort of a reasonable standard is, are we devastating Iran's ballistic missile capabilities? Are we developing, are we devastating their ability to create nuclear weaponry? Are we perhaps making it so that it's less likely they support terror proxies that kill ourselves and our allies in the region, then it's been pretty successful so far. But if you look at it the way Joe Kemp framed it up on Tucker's show yesterday, which is that Iran was never really going to develop a nuclear weapon and that they were only enriching as a bargaining tactic and we should have stuck around longer to bargain with Iran, and you take that side, then obviously you're going to be very discouraged about what's happening right now. And you see $119 barrels of oil and no real Incentive for Iran to open up the Strait of Hormuz. And you could see this thing spiraling really quick. So I feel like whichever side you're on right now, I do recommend operating with a cautious lens, because if you're someone who's already thrown President Trump under the bus, then it's probably because you are. You're taking cues from a really extreme but often credible and very persuasive faction of the online. Right. And if you are think that Trump is infallible here, then unfortunately Middle east wars are a place where a lot of presidents falter. So I see a lot of wisdom on both sides, and that makes it a very tough one because it's very hard to come in, Andrew, and declaratively say this is going one way or the other.

Andrew Colvett (59:13)

Yeah. And so there's two, you know, I watch clips. I did not watch the whole thing, but there's two clips floating around from Joe Kent's interview with Tucker Carlson. Yeah. One is basically kind of outlining the divergence, let's say that, and Pete Hegseth alluded to this, that Israel and the United States have oftentimes overlapping ambitions with the Iranian strikes. Sometimes their objectives diverge. So let's start there. What do we make of this divergence? I personally, you know, understand that Israel has its own objectives.

Alex Marlow (59:51)

Sure.

Andrew Colvett (59:51)

That does not surprise me, however, to suggest that President Trump is lacking any agency to make his own decisions, especially on something where he's been so consistent when it comes to Iran for at least a decade about nuclear capabilities, I find is a bridge that's a little far for me to wrap my head

Alex Marlow (60:11)

around totally with you on this. So this is. There's a couple of things that Kent threw out there that I think are very serious, and I think it'd be wise for the White House to address them over time. The first one is a suggestion that Trump had sort of moved the goalpost and Iran is not on the brink of getting a nuclear weapon and that their enrichment was only designed as a negotiating tactic. It was not designed to get nukes. This is something I have heard, but is directly contradicted by the administration's line via CIA Director John Ratliff, who said flat out that Iran was enriching to create a nuke to destroy America and our allies. And of course, I'm lightly inclined to side with the administration because they've built up a lot of credibility with me. But Kent's not a joker, so that's worth taking seriously. It's worth taking that on. On a Serious level. I think that's real. To understand that that is a. I think that's a legitimate concern. The people have got where I start losing them is the suggestion that Trump is only doing the bidding of Israel, because throughout the course the two hours and I watched the whole thing, both men really praised President Trump a lot. But the whole implication of the whole text here is that Trump is also getting played and rolled by Israel and doing Israel's bidding, whether or not because he feels like he's under threat, whether or not he's doing this because he's easily manipulated. That's sort of incoherent to me that Trump is the greatest leader imaginable and the perfect guy for the moment, but also is getting suckered by Israel, a country of 9 million people. That strikes me as a little incongruous. And I think that's one that does make me question some of what's going on and make me feel like there's more than meets the eye to some of this conversation. But I think clear that Israel definitely wants regime change. I think that some of our allies in the region, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who are sort of newer to the America first tent, largely since the Abraham Accords, which have largely been a triumph, I think they would like to see more widespread devastation to Iran than perhaps is in our immediate interest in America. So I don't think it's just Israel in the region, but I think it would be nice to get some clarity on some of those legitimate issues Kent and Tucker raise in the conversation.

Andrew Colvett (62:16)

Yeah. So then it goes into, obviously, this point that. And I played this in hour one. I think it's worth playing again because, you know, Joe Kent is now officially, we're told, under investigation by the FBI for leaking classified documents. And I want to be very clear. Joe Kent deployed 11 times for the US military. He's. That's unassailable. All right.

Alex Marlow (62:38)

Gold star husband.

Andrew Colvett (62:39)

Yeah, gold star husband. Lost his wife, you know, absolutely unassailable. And a lot of my friends really love Joe Kent a lot. I don't know him that well personally. Yeah. This was an interesting moment when Tulsi Gabbard was asked about it, and I want to get your take on it. SOT27, do you agree or disagree with what this letter was put out by former Director Kent.

Lydia Moynihan (63:03)

He said a lot of things in that letter. Ultimately, we have provided the President with

Andrew Colvett (63:08)

the intelligence assessments, and the president is

Charlie Kirk (63:12)

elected by the American people and makes

Lydia Moynihan (63:14)

his own decisions based on the information that's available to him. But do you agree with.

Charlie Kirk (63:18)

Does that statement he made blaming Israel concern you?

Andrew Colvett (63:22)

Yes, that was a moment right there, having she said yes, it was a little ambiguous of what she was actually saying. She was troubled by. What did you think was communicated in that moment, Alex?

Alex Marlow (63:36)

Yeah, I think that's really. I think he goes way too far in this regard, especially noting that there are other allies we have in the region who would like to see regime change in Iran as well. And just the thought that Trump is just some sort of a patsy for Israel, it just. It just doesn't make sense for anything else in Trump's character. And they cite one piece of evidence, which is the clip from Marco Rubio saying they got intel that Israel was going to go in. And it was sort of a do or die moment, I guess, for us to go in or not. I had a feeling that just one data point out of millions that were probably part of the president's calculation. The president loves being a peacetime president. He loves starting no new wars. So, you know, he's only doing this. He knows a lot of his base is not going to support it. He's not a dumb person. He's a very bright person who is very conscientious of his own people, his own supporters. And they knew not all of them were going to get on board. And that's why some of this stuff just goes way too far with the just blanket this is Israel's fault and Trump is a sucker for isra. That does not compute to me. And I did find. I got to say this, we're on the Charlie Kirk Show. I thought him speaking for Charlie was very crass to me. And it's the. We're all those of us who knew Charlie well. Andrew, you knew him the best of all of us. I knew Charlie very well. It's a really delicate thing. And he was out there, the biggest podcast in the world, speaking on behalf of Charlie and speaking on behalf of. In the context of implying perhaps Israel murdered Charlie and then using that in the exact context to suggest that Israel is compelling America to bomb girl schools on Iranian base. I mean, it's starting to get a little bit. I'm seeing the. The orange yarn one always Saudi in Philadelphia meme starts popping into my head here that now we're just connecting all sorts of different dots without any hard evidence.

Andrew Colvett (65:15)

Yeah. And I want to get into that a little bit more in the next segment, Alex, because, you know, obviously I logged that. I clocked that. Blake clocked it. We instantly shared that clip and decided discussed it and I think it deserves a whole segment. Let's just wrap this segment up really quickly with, you know, Megyn Kelly tweeted out something like, if you really want to destroy maga, you know, have the CIA surveil Tucker and the FBI indict or the DOJ indict Joe Kent. Do you read it that way or do you think we're more stable than that?

Alex Marlow (65:54)

Yeah, I think we are more stable than that. But I do, I take that into deep consideration. I'm a person who's very online conservative person. I'm aware of where the pulse of a lot of the highest energy people online are and they really like Joe Kent and they're very skeptical of us doing Israel's bidding at all. And that's a real factor here. But the FBI investigation started earlier and we know there are these strange leaks that are certainly designed to put some sort of a wedge between America and Israel. And some people in this audience probably think that's deserve it. But it's certainly a thing that's happening and, but it's worth considering.

Andrew Colvett (66:31)

Let's talk about what's really happening right now. New data shows financial stress is at an all time high. Millions of Americans are at a breaking point. Debt maxed out, no extra money, no room to breathe. And this isn't just lower income households anymore. Middle class families are hitting their limits too. This isn't people running around spending recklessly. This is everyday people that are running out of options. So if debt has been weighing on you, you're not alone. And when it comes to debt, waiting usually makes it worse. Interest piles up. Minimum payments keep you stuck. You don't need another loan or bankruptcy. You need a strategy. That's why you need to check out Done With Debt. They build a smart personalized plan around you. They're experienced at knowing what it takes to get you the biggest reductions possible. Whether you owe $10,000 or much more. Done With Debt has one clear goal. Lower what you owe so you can keep more of your paycheck every month. Start with a free consultation. It just takes minutes. Share your situation and find out what's possible. You don't have to stay stuck. Go to donewithdebt.com that's donewithdebt.com let's just hear this clip. This was obviously with Tucker Carlson, Joe Kent, SOT31.

Alex Marlow (67:42)

And then you know, Charlie Kirk is killed publicly in a very horrific way. And we're not really even allowed to look into that at all. And Charlie Kirk was one of President Trump's closest advisors, and he also advocated heavily against a war with Iran. He was in the Oval Office in the lead up to the 12 day war. I wasn't particularly close with Charlie. He was very gracious to me when I was running for Congress. Very, very supportive. So we knew each other. And the last time I saw Charlie Kirk on this earth was in June in the West Wing. And he said, joe, stop us from

John Solomon (68:16)

getting into a war with Iran.

Alex Marlow (68:19)

So when one of President Trump's closest advisers, who is vocally advocating for us to not go to war with Iran and for us to rethink at least our relationship with the Israelis, and then he's suddenly publicly assassinated, and we're not allowed to ask any questions about that.

Andrew Colvett (68:38)

So he says we're not allowed to ask any questions about that. I can personally attest to that. I don't believe that that is the truth. I believe there's been a billion questions asked, both, you know, publicly and privately behind the scenes. So many leads have been pursued. Alex, what? Get your reaction. And then I'm going to throw to Blake.

Alex Marlow (68:58)

Yeah, first of all, I think that Charlie did not want regime change, war in Iran, but he did support the President. I think he would have given the President a wide berth and a certain level of trust. I don't think it would have gone on indefinitely. But I think that, you know, two and a half weeks in, that Joe Kent is speaking on behalf of Charlie. I find that to be grotesque. I just do. And I'm a Joe Kent fan. So this is disappointing to me that he's going out there at this level, because I think I respect so much of what he's done, both in political life and, of course, his service is just it, just fantastic. And the fact that he's speculating at this level, I think that is connecting Charlie, who appears to have been murdered by a transferry freak, to what's going on in terms of Trump's Iran policy right now. It doesn't add up to me. And the thought that Joe is saying this right after he left the government, we know while he's under investigation by the FBI, the timing of it, so he leaves the government, and because he couldn't ask questions when he was in a position of immense power, now he's going in the private sector and getting a lot of attention. It just reeks to me that there's something off. There's a variable we're not seeing here. But it doesn't make any sense that I couldn't ask questions. So now I'm quitting. That doesn't add up as well. So there's something way off about this.

Charlie Kirk (70:11)

I mean, I'll be honest, I'm. I'm quite angry about what he did. I think his agenda was very clear. He's saying, oh, we're not allowed to ask questions. No, I believe we were allowed to ask questions. That's why the FBI investigated the crime. That's why they collaborated with Utah authorities to find and charge the suspect, which they did. And we have ample evidence that there's a ton of evidence in this case. Maybe the reason he wasn't involved is it's actually not his department's job to investigate crimes once they're committed. Maybe the reason he wasn't looped in as much is because they already suspected him of leaking, and he appears to have continued to be leaking things. And I'm just. I'm so angry about Charlie. A person we care about being used in just as a political football in this blatant way where he's using bits of, like, conversations he supposedly had, bits of evidence to really paint a picture that he can't actually demonstrate evidence for. It just.

Eric Bolling (71:08)

It.

Charlie Kirk (71:08)

It made me very upset, and it demonstrated frankly why I suspect it's a good reason he's not in government anymore. I know a lot of people have fondness for him, but I think. I think this was incredibly. I think this was odious behavior by him.

Alex Marlow (71:21)

And, you know, he dismisses some clear evidence on Trump's behalf. It doesn't come up in the conversation at all. I mentioned those other allies that were. Definitely would like to see even more done to Iran. But also think about how Trump basically laid out a red line a year ago in a letter saying no more ballistic missile development, no more nuclear development to the point of beyond civilian means, and no more funding tier proxies. Iran literally did all three of those things. Joe Kent's aware of this. He's spoken about it. He's tweeted about it. He's even gone pretty far to say that he's called on Trump to basically knock out Iran's ballistic missile capabilities, which is pretty far out there. And then now he's here and he just got there. Seem like within a matter of two weeks. It just is incongruous to me.

Charlie Kirk (72:03)

I don't want to fixate on that, because we know there are people who will say things publicly because, you know, they're on side or they're part of the movement. They might have private misgivings, but it's. It's just incredibly aggravating what he's done where he himself, he has no evidence of the thing he's implying. All he can say is I was cut out of the investigation. When it seems there's ample reason to cut him out of the investigation because he's a guy who runs off and does stuff like this. And I like will be that we've been the first to say Charlie didn't want war with Iran. He argued against it. He argued against it to the President. We've tried very carefully to present what we knew. Charlie believed, how we think he might react to this, while acknowledging we aren't sure because he's no longer with us. We're not. We're trying to not use him as this blatant, you know, veto power over everything. And I'm just so upset that Jokent runs off and this is like the first thing he does because he knows it'll go viral, he knows it'll get a ton of attention when as he admits he actually doesn't have anything. He has no evidence. He just does that classic we're not allowed to ask questions. A ton of people have asked questions. They've never, if they're given answers, they don't like the answers and they pretend they were never given them.

Alex Marlow (73:17)

Yeah, the lack of hard evidence definitely strikes me. It's so speculative, the argument that's being advanced. And just to repeat, just the invoking Charlie is just when he admits multiple times that you didn't know him very well. Just really off putting to me.

Andrew Colvett (73:32)

Yeah. And I just want to underscore a fact here because I'm privy to certain details that I'm not allowed to speak about publicly. And I want the audience to know every single question that has been floated in any way, shape or form. We have chased down and we have done our best to. So my point is he's saying we're not allowed to ask questions. Well, just because you're not presented with the evidence doesn't mean or given access to that part of the investigation, doesn't mean that the questions haven't been asked and that the lines of inquiry haven't been followed. That does not mean things have not been investigated. Because I know a tremendous of amount, amount of things have been investigated and by people that love Charlie, people that cared about Charlie. And here's the last thing, and I constantly go back to this Turley quote in my head where he says if 90% of the evidence against Tyler Robinson was thrown out, this guy would still get the death penalty. If the defense somehow succeeded in throwing 90% of this evidence out, he'd still be found guilty in a court of law. The mountain of evidence that has accumulated against this guy is incredible. And like, just believe me on that. They have, they have this guy completely. Did people seem to know about it beforehand? Yes. Was he radicalized by other people? Yes. I am desperate to get to the bottom of those questions. I'm even, I'm open to all kinds of different things. But to suggest that somehow Tyler Robinson was not the guy that pulled the trigger, I think is, is, is, is, is a line where I just have to put my foot down and say, no, this guy did. This guy did the deed and he deserves to be punished by the court of law. Final, final thoughts to you, Alex.

Alex Marlow (75:13)

Yeah, it's a great, it's a great summary. And all this is designed, timed to do maximum damage to Trump at his war effort, which, like it or not, we're in it for at least a little bit longer and divide the MAGA movement. That's very sad to me as a OG member of the MAGA movement.

Andrew Colvett (75:30)

Alex Marlow, thank you so much.

Charlie Kirk (75:36)

For more on many of these stories

Alex Marlow (75:37)

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