Charlie Kirk (3:57)

And, you know, Kane, what do you make of the administration coming with such preparedness, such precision, the executive orders, the pace, the rapidity? I agree. The time in exile, I think, was very good in a lot of different ways for us. I mean, Kane, that's where you and I got to know each other, where we were the furthest away from the presidency imaginable. When you and I started talking, when you started to come on this program, I mean, Kaine, it was like Trump was like 12% in the betting odds to become president, remember? I mean, he was indicted and there was lawfare. And you and I would talk late at night and say, man, I don't know about this. And, I mean, he just crawled himself out of the impossible hole to a place where now he's the most popular person on the planet, most powerful person on the planet. I think one of the inflection points was East Palestine, Ohio. When he went there, and that was the beginning, he's like, I'm gonna go to forgotten America. Biden is forgetting them. Full court press, and it's only going to get deeper and better. So we have some amazing stories here on citizenfreepress.com and it seems as if the American people, Kane, are largely supporting this.

Kane (5:07)

Yeah, they are. And it's nice. You know, you and I are poll junkies. We look at all of this stuff, even though we know to discount certain things. But it's been phenomenal. That CBS News poll that came out, incredible, great news. Margaret Brennan was not pleased. You're right. About how when I started coming on your show, it was Desantis. It was all DeSantis. That was the talk. As you said, Trump's betting odds were low. They were below 15, 15%. DeSantis looked like he was ascendant. And, yeah, you know, I sort of forgotten about East Palestine kicking that off. But that created so much sort of angst and unrest and anger at the Biden administration. And Trump came in and he sort of showed what a real president does. I mean, he replaced Biden. Biden never made it to East Palestine at least, and not in those, not in those first eight months. So, you know, it obviously gave him time. But in terms of, you know, where we are now, three weeks later, if you had said to me a month ago, okay, Trump's going to go shock and awe, days of thunder. He's not going to stop executive orders, you know, day after day, I wouldn't have thought that his, that his poll numbers would be this good. There's something I've got in the stack this morning. 42% of black men approved.

Charlie Kirk (6:26)

Unbelievable.

Kane (6:27)

Yeah, it really is. And Trump's, you know, it's the expansion of the populist base from white working class to black working class, Hispanic working class and Asian working class. That's sort of, you know, what we're looking at. We're thinking bigger, you know, where is this going to go in 2028? Can we, can we maintain the hold on the House, Senate and the presidency? And it's looking good for populists, you know, for populism, for nationalist populism. Everything is sort of falling in order. The media is even being, you know, though he's still being attacked. The media isn't being as aggressive as they used to be because they're seeing these approval ratings and it's just sort of all coming together. 500 executive orders. I think we've had 500 in three weeks. These are big numbers. And, and we didn't see it coming. And you and I, you know, we started in the darkness of future indictments. I mean, that's when I started coming on.

Citizen Kane (7:22)

Yes, it was.

Kane (7:22)

How is Trump going to handle these indictments?

Charlie Kirk (7:24)

We had you on every week, sometimes multiple times a week. And everybody in this audience deserves incredible credit for how you had the resolve and you stayed focused. Let's talk about Bobby Kennedy. Kane, what do you think was the significance of Bobby Kennedy's role in this last election? And what does this mean for the Republican Party moving forward? Him as Secretary of Health and Human Services? Boy, that feels good to say.

Kane (7:51)

Yeah, it does. I think it's five points. It's four or five points, Charlie. He brought independence. We were looking at the independent numbers before Kennedy came aboard and they were not that strong. They were more or less closely split between Trump and the Democrat, Trump and Kamala. So I think it was, that may have made the difference in Pennsylvania. There's so many things it's very difficult to pinpoint. Everyone worked. TP USA worked, Scott Pressler worked. We had sort of massive grassroots, but in the bigger picture, the bigger above board picture, the Kennedy, Kennedy coming onto Team Trump, endorsing Trump, that's four points of independence. And we saw it in the numbers, we saw it immediately within the next week. So it was a beautiful decision. And I'll even admit I was, you know, when Kennedy first stuck his head in the ring, going back, you know, long before he endorsed Trump, I was ready for Trump to take him as Vice president. This is long before J.D. vance, and that'll show people sort of how wide my birth can be. But, but I knew how important. I know how many independent sort of left leaning independents normally voting Democrat. These people loved Kennedy and getting him on our team was huge. And getting him through the Senate was huge. And the last thing is, I'll say is as I'll follow through. You know, Charlie, there was less, there was less resistance to Kennedy and Tulsi Gabbard. Why? Because of what happened with Pete Hegseth. And a lot of that is you and TP usa. You know, we sort of put our, we put our hair up on the back of our necks and we said, look, guys, if you're not going to go along with the MAGA agenda, this is what we're going to do to you. We don't know who it's going to be, but it's going to be powerful and we're going to primary you guys. And they got in line, Charlie. They got in line and they did what the American people wanted.

Charlie Kirk (9:37)

So Kane we also now have Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. We have this incredible team of superstars filling this administration. And the pace is only going to increase. I hope everyone understands. Get used to this tempo. People say, oh, it's not sustainable. No, no, no, no. This is the tempo. Without the Cabinet. Imagine the tempo. By the way, can we just brag on how great Marco Rubio has been? I mean, can we just say how great Pete Hegseth has been? I mean, this is the big three. I hope you guys understand. I got three people that I just can't say enough good stuff about. Marco's been a 10. Pete Hegseth has been a 10.

Citizen Kane (10:10)

And.

Charlie Kirk (10:10)

And J.D. vance has been to 10. As we do this program right now, Donald Trump is calling shots. He's the offensive coordinator. He is the air traffic controller. We got Marco Rubio solving all the Nicaraguan, Guatemala and Venezuelan Colombian problems, which is immense because all the migration stuff starts there. He's speaking Spanish to them and speaking true to them. We got Pete Hegseth doing PT with our troops at 0500 where Lloyd Austin couldn't walk up a flight of stairs. And then the other side, we got J.D. vance. He was in Paris. He's going to Dachau. And now he's doing Munich tomorrow, giving one of the most important speeches for a sitting vice president in all in modern American history. I mean, Kaine, minute and a half remaining. Have we ever seen a rock star roster of all stars simultaneously fighting for the Republic? Meanwhile, you got Elon Musk going around with a metaphorical hammer breaking every piece of government waste he can get in contact with.

Kane (10:59)

Kaine, I know, it's a beautiful thing, man. You made all my points for me with Rubio. It's the Spanish. That's what stuck out to me is he's going to these countries, he's speaking their language. They're loving him, they're accepting him. And, you know, and Malai sort of. Sort of paved the way and Bukele. So that's beautiful. Hegseth, as you said, working out P.T. you know, Lloyd Austin would have been wearing two masks and a visor. You got J.D. vance making history in Europe. Sort of the populism is following him. You've got Musk, as you said, with the hammer and Russ vote these guys are making. Charlie, you're young, but I know a lot of why you got into politics and started TPUSA is the debt, right? The national debt is that overall issue that young people pay attention to. And so to watch this stuff happen. You've seen my headlines, Charlie. I've been waiting for this stuff for 25 years. The whole reason I'm interested in politics, the national debt. When I was working at CNN at age 21, that's where I got sort of scooped in on the national debt. And Charlie, it was $2 trillion and I was freaking out about 2 trillion. It, it's 37 trillion now, as you know. So I've never seen anything like it.

Citizen Kane (12:06)

I agree.

Kane (12:06)

The action will not stop. You know, I'm the guy covering it 18 hours a day and there's no break, there's no slowdown. I'm, I, I love it, Charlie. I love it.

Charlie Kirk (12:16)

Kane. Excellent work. Citizenfreepress.com that is citizenfreepress.com Excellent. Thank you so much.

Advertiser (12:24)

Gentlemen, let's get real for a second. Are you frustrated with today's woke dating scene? The apps, the games, the endless swiping. It's a waste of time. Finding a woman who shares your values, faith, family and patriotism feels nearly impossible. But it doesn't have to be. Selective Search, America's leading matchmaking firm, is changing the game. They connect strong, successful men like you. Men who love God, love America and want a family with incredible women who share your values. These are intelligent, faith driven women who put family first and still believe in traditional values. Imagine that if you're single, 35 to 40 years old. Conservative man in Southern California. Listen up. Selective Search has an exclusive network of women ready for the real thing. Here's the best part. Their candidate program is 100% free and confidential. So my closest friends have used Selective Search and let me tell you, they're meeting incredible women. This is your chance. This is not an app. It's your answer. The perfect conservative woman is out there waiting for you. Visit selectivesearch.com california today. Let the professionals introduce you to women already looking for someone like you in Southern California. Don't wait for the perfect moment. Take action now. Go to selectivesearch.com California and start building the future you deserve.

Charlie Kirk (13:42)

Okay, there is a very successful podcast called Pod Save America and it is hosted by the Obama Bros. Dan Pfeiffer, Tommy Vitter, Jon Favreau. And Jon Levitt. And here they are on this clip and we're gonna keep. It's a longer clip but I wanna go through it with you lamenting, but oh, we should have done this when we were in office. And this is a perfect picture of kind of the Democrat mind. Now hilariously, this is the type of person that can't get hired at the top of a Democrat administration anymore. But you can kind of see that they're kind of in charge of the limp wristed mafia over there. Not a lot of spirit, not a lot of smoke. Because you could see that as they're lamenting over Doge. It's the perfect picture into what's wrong with the Democrat Party. Oh, we should have, we could have. Why didn't we? It's because they're missing that kind of masculine energy to go forth and to change. Watch this clip very carefully. These were all of kind of senior aides to Barack Obama. Again, their podcast is very popular and I respect that. But they're going through talking about how what Elon Musk is doing is working, that they wanted to do some of this stuff and they couldn't and that Gen Z likes it. Very telling clip here, play cut 182. Keep my mic on.

Jon Favreau (15:04)

And also, as much as I want to throw all of Trump's campaign promises in his face, like the price of eggs is not down, you have not ended the war in Ukraine, et cetera, et cetera, he said he'd do it in 24 hours. I, I think most voters get that it was a shtick and they're gonna give him some time to actually get things done.

Dan Pfeiffer (15:21)

Trump is like, he is moving so fast. They are doing a lot. It's not just the perception of it. They hit the ground running in a serious way. It's like genuinely impressive. Impressive in a dark and sinister way, but it's nonetheless impressive. And if you're turning on the news every day and hearing about all these different things Trump is doing and all the different criticisms coming out of it, you may not like all of it, but like in comparison, how to how people felt about Joe Biden being basically absent. They felt, I imagine for a lot of people it's a welcome change.

Tommy Vietor (15:50)

The energy and he's signing things and he's effect all that. I think that is playing extraordinarily well.

Jon Favreau (15:55)

I don't want to seem like you're opposed to government efficiency.

Charlie Kirk (15:58)

Oh yeah.

Jon Favreau (15:58)

But obviously now they're just rampaging through like the government Venmo and shutting. Right.

Dan Pfeiffer (16:03)

I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just lamenting our situation.

Charlie Kirk (16:05)

Me too.

Tommy Vietor (16:06)

No, I love it. I felt the same way because I've seen the messaging memos and it's like, you know, the young, young people, Gen Z, they like Doge and what Elon's doing because you know, they don't see they see government as sclerotic and inefficient and they like the move fast and break things ethos. And they want to get stuff done and they like the results. And it's like, yeah, we, yes, of course, we all want that. We all know that government is slow. We all know the government can be inefficient. We all know that the bureaucracy can be bloated. We all worked in the White House. We tried to reorganize the government, we tried to find efficiencies. It's hard to do.

Dan Pfeiffer (16:36)

And honestly, some of this is pretty annoying because it's some of the stuff we should have done, right? Yeah, you could do some of this.

Jon Favreau (16:41)

You just gotta talk Gen Z to him. You're like, I could dig these doja cats.

Dan Pfeiffer (16:45)

Oh my God, that was horrible.

Citizen Kane (16:47)

Oh no.

Charlie Kirk (16:48)

You see, you got Jon Favreau. Well, we wanted to do this, but we couldn't. And it's really frustrating and I don't know why we couldn't do it. Then you got that other guy. I don't even know his name. This is really frustrating. I know. It's very important because these are mid level managers that have graduated to podcasting and they found themselves on the losing end of every single 7030 issue. But understand, you got masculine, determinative, go forth and conquer, go west, young man. Energy that is now in the White House. That's not this little mid level manager, mid level management ethos. You got a bunch of femboys over there. That's what the Democrat Party is. Well, maybe we have to have a little bit of a council and a committee and we, we can't offend other people. We wanted to do it, but you couldn't do it. You don't have what it takes. You don't have the intestinal fortitude, you don't have the grit, you don't have the spine. It's not just about ideas and policies. It's about do you have the DNA and the fiber? And the Democrat Party does. And that's the best that they have to offer. But of course they took after their boss, Obama. Obama was just there as a mid level manager, community organizer type. And now they're realizing they're losing. Oh, yes, they are. DOGE is incredibly popular. It's popular with young people, it's popular with people of all ages, but especially Gen Z, because yes, we should break government. It doesn't work for you. We're borrowing trillions of dollars that we don't have. And the POD Save America Femboys they should be lamenting their position. It doesn't look too good for them.

Advertiser (18:21)

Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here. The numbers don't lie. The impact that balance of nature makes every single day is astounding. You can see the numbers for yourself on their website@balanceofnature.com listen to these stats concerning balance nature's worldwide success. More than a thousand success stores reported each month, hundreds of thousands of customers worldwide, millions of orders delivered each year, and billions, yes, billions of fruits and veggie supplements consumed by people who have decided to start living better. There's only one thing missing, and that is you do what I did and add yourself to these numbers and start taking balance of Nature's whole food supplements like so many others around the world. Here's another number that should get your attention. 35% use my discount code Charlie to get 35% off plus free shipping and their money back guarantee. You must use my discount code Charlie. Call them at 800-246-8751 and use discount code Charlie or order online at balanceofnature.com, use discount code Charlie to get 35% off plus free shipping, that is balanceofnature.com balanceofnature.com.

Charlie Kirk (19:22)

Joining us now is Josh Hammer, senior editor at large from Newsweek and host of the Josh Hammer Show. There is a lot going on with the judicial activism right now that needs to be explained. There's a new article from Unherd by Josh Hammer, anti Trump judges spark a legal crisis. They're the ones sparking a legal crisis. Josh, welcome to the program. What are your thoughts, Charlie?

Citizen Kane (19:47)

First of all, I think judicial activism is probably, if anything, a charitable way of describing what we're seeing unfold here, my friend. I mean, this, if anything, is a judicial insurrection. I mean, this happened during the first Trump administration. So I think back all the way, actually, to the year 2018, 2019. It was in the latter years of the Trump presidency that the number of nationwide injunctions that were imposed against the Trump presidency actually then exceeded all the previous presidents combined. In fact, Bill Barr, back when he was attorney general, gave a speech to the American Legal Institute, the Law Reform Institute, actually decrying the practice of nationwide injunctions. So this is not the first time this has happened to President Trump in power. But those judges have not learned their lesson from the first time. Partially that's because SCOTUS has derelicted its duty. The Supreme Court has not actually taken a case, Charlie, as to whether or not any of this is constitutional in the first place. And I Guess I'll kind of just cut right to the chase there on that point and say that, no, no, none of this is legal. None of this is constitutional. The media, Charlie, day in and day out, they're accusing Donald Trump and J.D. vance and Elon Musk of fomenting a constitutional crisis because they're governing with all these executive orders. They're having Elon Musk go into the treasury payment system there. First of all, Republican administrations, conservatives in general, Charlie, we're constitutionalists. We respect the separation of powers. We respect the rule of law. If there is an actual action that exceeds the legitimate confines of a sphere of governance, then that is where the judiciary comes in to rein in. But what judges are doing right now all across the country on basically everything that Donald Trump has done since he came into power, everything from birthright citizenship to Elon Musk and Doge going into the treasury payments there, Judge McConnell in Rhode island threaten criminal contempt, criminal content of the Trump administration, unless they subject all of their discretionary spending and funding decisions through his puny little judicial desk there deep in the bowels of the very blue state of Rhode island there. This is wildly beyond the judicial power of which Article 3 of the Constitution speaks. And I know that because people have been writing about this actually for a very long time. We can go all the way back to Thomas Jefferson, at least in 1804, writing a letter to Abigail Adams, the wife, famously, of his partisan rival, John Adams. Thomas Jefferson famously said that to allow the judiciary to settle all questions, even when it comes to the legitimate authority of the other branches of the Congress or the executive branch, would be to risk despotism. Abraham Lincoln really said it best in his first inaugural address in 1861, where he said that the candid citizen must confess that where you have ordinary litigation between two parties and that that somehow results in fixing national policy for all of the people throughout the land, because a court says that is at that point the people will have ceased to be their own rulers because they will have allowed that eminent tribunal, AKA the court, to be a juristocracy. This is judicial supremacy. But that is not the American system of governance. There judges, Charlie, in our system of governance, in our constitutional structure, judges have the power to bind the parties to a case. Period, full stop, end of story. Anything beyond that. It is persuasive authority that can or cannot be listened to, depending on whether the legal reasoning is cogent and coherent. But the executive, the executive branch has every ability in the world to faithfully interpret the Constitution and to enforce the Constitution within their legitimate sphere of influence. The birthright citizenship thing will be a very good example there. SCOTUS has never definitively ruled one way or the other as to whether or not there is birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, AKA anchor babies. In fact, there's a lot of evidence that that's not supposed to be the end. That is not constitutionally required. So because that's an unresolved question, the executive can 1000% choose to enforce its own understanding at some point, sooner rather than later. Basically, ASAP here, the United States Supreme Court is going to have to take a direct challenge to the entire practice of so called nationwide injunctions. And as Clarence Thomas alluded to in his concurring opinion back in the 2018 case of Trump vs. Hawaii, the landmark immigration case. As Thomas said in his concurring opinion, SCOTUS is going to have to rein in these lower court judges and that's going to have to happen I think, asap.

Charlie Kirk (23:53)

What does that look like, reining it in in practice? Because the juristocracy is exactly right.

Citizen Kane (23:59)

So in practice, I think the most concrete thing that SCOTUS can do is to say that nationwide injunctions are actually not a thing. And I think to this law review article here, I guess we'll nerd out just for a second here. So there was a law review article in the Harvard law review in December 2017 by a fantastic conservative legal scholar by the name of Sam Bray. He's actually currently teaching in Notre Dame Law School, probably the single greatest piece of legal scholarship on the question of so called nationwide injunctions. And he just persuasively demonstrates over the course of this legal scholarship that it's not a thing there. Because again, the injunctive power, when courts are issuing an injunction, what they are doing in actuality is they are telling a certain defendant and a certain plaintiff that their actions with respect to each other have to go a certain way. But it does not reach beyond the amit of the name defendant and the name plaintiff there. This is a modern thing. There was no such thing as a nationwide injunction until the 1960s. That was the very first recorded instance of one in the late 1960s, I think during the Lyndon Johnson presidency, maybe even the Nixon presidency there. But it didn't explode into being until the very, very latter years of the Obama presidency. And then really in actuality, during the Trump presidency, this became a thing due to partisan lawfare. It is just lawfare by any other means. They lost the lawfare against Donald Trump the last Couple of years with Jack Smith and Fonny Willis and Alvin Bragg. And now they're basically just trying lawfare by any other means. So SCOTUS has the ability here, they have every ability in the world to say the nationwide injunctions are not a thing. Additionally, I'll say this as well. Congress, Congress, which is currently governed by Republicans, last I checked, they have a ton of power, a ton of power to reign in the lower courts basically in any way possible there. These lower, lower courts, Charlie, I clerked on one, I clerked on the 5th Circuit based in New Orleans, Louisiana. All these lower courts actually don't even have to exist. They solely exist at Congress's discretion. The only court in America that has to exist is a Supreme Court there. They can also take very petty retributive punitive action Congress if they want to. So one kind of funny example that I like to use. If Congress wanted to say that you, Mr. Justice or Mr. Judge, are not allowed to use taxpayer dollars to dry clean your judicial robe just as a way to humiliate you or embarrass you, they can do that. Congress has the ability to regulate the lower courts a lot. And frankly, I think it's about time that they do it. Judicial impeachment as well, I think will be another very, very powerful tool. That day has probably come. We really should see those impeachment articles filed asap, I think from Jim Jordan and House Judiciary.

Charlie Kirk (26:26)

Yeah, but can they remove the judges or impeachment, that's just kind of a slap on the wrist because it seems as if they're basically permanently in there.

Citizen Kane (26:34)

Well, they would have to be convicted by the Senate. So that's, you know, therein lies the rub. Right? I mean, the votes may or may not be there in the Senate. I'm not gonna conf confidently predict that the votes would in fact be there, but at a bare minimum, I think it would be a serious black mark there. And you know, look, judges are people that went to law school. They climbed through the ranks of the legal profession. They do care about things like black marks. It is an actual kind of notch on the resume. Right? So I mean, even if it is purely symbolic, if it dies in the House and is not even taken up by John Thune, although I think it probably would be taken up at least in the Senate there, You know, bring it to a vote at a bare minimum, get Democrats on the record at a bare minimum there, it would be at least a pretty sizable symbolic shot across the bow against one of these activist left wing lower court judges there. And it would be a nice civics lesson, frankly, for the American people as well.

Charlie Kirk (27:26)

Hey, Charlie, Kirk here. Ever see your dog slowing down or having health issues and wonder, what can I do to make them better? Well, my friend, add rough greens to your dog's food for 90 days and you'll see changes that will amaze you, guaranteed. Invented by naturopathic doctor Dennis Black, Rough Greens wants to invite you and give your pup the Ruffgreens 90 Day Challenge. In the first 30 days, you'll see shinier coats and increased energy. By day 60, your dog will have a stronger immune system, less shedding and improved joint function, all due to live nutrients you've added to their diet. And at 90 days, better digestion, reduced inflammation, improved heart health, and you might even have reduced their cancer risk. Fetch a free Jump Start trial bag for your dog today. Go to ruffgreens.com just use promo code Charlie, that is ruffgreens.com promo code Charlie. And just cover shipping. You don't have to change your dog's food to improve your dog's health. Just add a scoop of Ruff Greens, that is ruffgreens.com so, Josh, if you were to paint a picture here of a full court press to counter this juristocracy, I love that term. What would that look like?

Citizen Kane (28:39)

So there's, I think, I think it's an all three branches at once gang up on these rogue lower courts. So we can start with the United States Supreme Court itself and then we'll kind of work our way backwards from Article 3 to Article 1, I suppose. So we'll start with Article 3 there. So the easiest way to rein in lower court judges is for the United States Supreme Court to do so because the, the, the federal judiciary actually does work as a legitimate hierarchy where SCOTUS has the ability to do whatever it wants to in essentially its discretionary power to overturn lower court judges that are running amok and have run amok, so they can, and they must take a direct challenge to the entire practice of a so called nationwide injunction. And they should declare that that exceeds the judicial power of which Article 3 speaks. The Supreme Court should also expedite some of these other cases on the actual underlying substantive constitutional merit. So for example, the birthright citizen who just citizenship case is a very good example there. We've now had three lower court judges that have put a temporary restraining order or some sort of other injunctive relief and joining the Trump administration, preventing it from enforcing its correct interpretation of birthright Citizenship for children of illegal aliens. SCOTUS should fast track an oral argument on that. They should get that opinion out by the end of this term in June there. I'm not going to confidently predict that there are five votes for the correct interpretation there. I tend to be a little bit of a pessimist when it comes to that particular issue there, but there's at least a possibility. So that thing should be fast tracked. Kind of working your way backwards. The executive branch there. Well, I mean, let's take Judge McConnell in Rhode Island, Charlie, just for example here. So this judge, Rhode island, is threatening to put criminal contempt there. So at that point, the Trump administration should basically just flip its fingers at this judge and say, okay, you and what army? I mean, who's actually going to enforce this criminal contempt for implementation?

Charlie Kirk (30:21)

Now, we're getting down to the essence of it, which is let Marshall send his army. Right now. We're getting down exactly right. But that, I hate to say it, Mr. Hammer, that is actually a constitutional crisis, isn't it?

Citizen Kane (30:34)

Well, let's play it out a little further, Charlie. So, look, the judge in Rhode Island, Judge McConnell here, he's threatening criminal contempt here. Okay, so who's actually going to enforce this criminal contempt? That would probably be one of the US Marshals, right? Because as Hamilton says in Federalist 78, the judiciary has neither force nor will, but merely judgment and literally depends upon the efficacy of the executive branch even to enforce its judgments. What he means by that is because the U.S. marshals, in actuality, they're not part of Article 3, they're part of Article 2. They're actually part of the Department of Justice. The U.S. marshals sit under Attorney General Pam Bondi. So even if McConnell, Judge McConnell, that is not Senator McConnell, even if Judge McConnell can get a U.S. marshal to try to enforce his contempt, order, fine, let that play out. Donald Trump can then just issue a pardon, make everyone happy. He can literally then just issue a pardon for whichever official has been found in contempt by this rogue judge. End of story. Constitutional crisis totally averted there. And Then finally, Article 1 When it comes to Congress, that's kind of what you and I were just talking about there, judicial impeachment. Start with Judge McConnell. Start with Judge Engelmeier in New York City, this other rogue judge who had that ridiculous ruling about Elon Musk and Doge when it comes to the treasury payments. Those would be two good candidates to get these articles of impeachment rolling there. And then I would also support literally just possibly stripping some of these lower court judgeships there when you actually start to make the other judges feel the heat. Because if you are removing certain judgeships, by definition, you're going to then move some cases from their docket to the other docket. Judges will get the message sooner rather than later. There are ultimately people that are not going to be wanting to literally work 247 there. They want to sleep and eat and see the wife and kids like anyone else there. So when you really start kind of putting some meat on the bone, so to speak, here with the congressional tools, I think you'll start to see a good response as well.

Charlie Kirk (32:16)

Josh, more broadly, what do you make of how this administration has been governing the tempo, the pace, the spirit? What is your take on Trump 2.0?

Citizen Kane (32:26)

Charlie it's been a beautiful sight to behold. It has been absolutely fantastic. It kind of reminds me of what Steve Bannon said once during the first Trump administration when Steve famously said that the way to deal with the corporate media and the Democratic elected official class is to flood the zone. And I'm a big sports. Yeah, flood it. I mean, I'm a big sports fan. That's a football term. Steve is borrowing that from, from football. And it makes perfect sense. That's what they're doing day in and day out. Charlie. I mean, I mean, there's been so many executive orders that my buddy Will Scharf, the White House staff secretary, who I've been friends with for years, we literally co founded Jews Against Soros together two years ago. I mean, Will's become a household name because every day on cable TV you see him handing off the executive orders. It's incredible stuff there. I love it. Keep them with the head on a permanent swivel there. Make sure they have no idea what's going on. There's something one day, there's something else the next day there. But he's doing dynamic stuff, Charlie, and the best part is it's working. The Canada, Mexico tariffs, Panama, getting out of China's Belt and Road initiative there, the stuff in Gaza, I guess we'll see what happens there. But there is so much good stuff happening. I'm honestly starting to lose track of it myself.

Charlie Kirk (33:33)

Josh Hammer, everyone. Check out the Josh Hammer Show. Josh, I'll be seeing you next week in Phoenix for the Hillsdale event. Look forward to it.

Advertiser (33:38)

Thanks so much.

Citizen Kane (33:39)

Looking forward to it, Charles.

Charlie Kirk (33:40)

Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us. As always, freedom charliekirk.com thanks so much.

Advertiser (33:45)

For listening and God bless.

Josh Hammer (33:47)

For more on many of these stories.

Charlie Kirk (33:49)

And news, you can trust.

Josh Hammer (33:50)

Go to charliekirk.com.