B (5:43)

We hit some new lows over the.

A (5:44)

Weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to.

B (5:54)

To score political points from.

A (5:55)

And in between the finger pointing, there was grieving. So to review, he says we hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them. Think about how little this statement makes sense. Charlie was a leader, maybe the single most important leader after Trump, of the MAGA movement, beloved by maga. And now Kimmel is saying that MAGA killed Charlie. On its face, it makes no sense. The only way that Kimmel's line could possibly make any sense whatsoever is if you had no idea who Charlie was. I mean, you have to be ignorant to a chronic degree. Either that or you have to be a committed partisan, someone who genuinely doesn't care about the truth. And as we're learning, that's a very good descriptor for many leftists in this country and certainly Jimmy Kimmel's entire audience. As we discussed last week, there was never any evidence supporting the theory that the shooter was a conservative or an apolitical nihilist or any of that. And yesterday, when the Utah County D A held a press conference outlining additional evidence that's been uncovered in the investigation, that theory, as flimsy and unsupported as it was, fell apart finally in its entirety. Watch.

C (7:12)

Robinson's mother stated that the following to police on September 11, 2025, the day after the shooting, Robinson's mother saw the photo of the shooter in the news and thought the shooter looked like her son. Robinson's mother called her son and asked him where he was. He said he was at home sick and that he had also been at home homesick. On September 10, Robinson's mother expressed concern to her husband that the suspect shooter looked like Robinson. Robinson's father agreed. Robinson's mother explained that over the last year or so, Robinson had become more political and had started to lean more to the left, becoming more pro gay and trans rights oriented. She stated that Robinson began to date his roommate, a biological male who was transit transitioning genders.

A (8:18)

Now, before we continue with the press conference, I need to say something about the DA's choice of words here. You know, public officials should not legitimize for any reason the idea that someone can transition between the two genders. This roommate was not in the process of becoming a woman because it's not possible for a man to be. To be a woman. We're talking about a gay man who wore furry costumes, apparently, and wrote emo posts on Reddit about how he hated injecting himself with cross sex hormones. He was destroying his life at a very young age in service of a lie. When public officials use terms like transition genders, they're saying all that behavior is legitimate. I mean, that's what they are, intentionally or not, implying they're giving gender transition the stamp of approval from the Utah District Attorney's office. But it's not legitimate. It's disturbing, unnatural, impossible. And if we want to eradicate transgender extremism in this country and prevent more assassinations like this, we have to drop the pretense that these gender affirming procedures, quote, unquote, have any claim to legitimacy whatsoever. There's no excuse for anyone in a position of authority to say otherwise. Now, getting back to the substance of the press conference. The DA says that over the last year or so, the shooter became more political, leaned more to the left, became preoccupied with transgenderism and gay rights, to the point that, as we know he know now, he began dating his roommate who was, quote, unquote, transitioning. And that's according to the shooter's mother, who's, who's obviously going to be a reliable source. And later on, in communications with his roommate after the shooting, the shooter explicitly stated that he had been motivated by Charlie's political statements. Watch.

C (9:55)

In one conversation before the shooting, Robinson mentioned that Charlie Kirk would be holding an event at uvu, which Robinson said was a stupid venue for the event. Robinson accused Kirk of spreading hate. Robinson's father reported that when his wife showed him the surveillance image of the suspected shooter in the news, he agreed that it looked like their son. He also believed that the rifle that police suspected the shooter used matched a rifle that was given to his son as a gift. As A result, Robinson's father contacted his son and asked him to send a photo of the rifle. Robinson did not respond. However, Robinson's father spoke on the phone with Robinson. Robinson implied that he planned to take his own life. Robinson's parents were able to convince him to meet at their home. As they discussed the situation, Robinson implied that he was the shooter and stated that he couldn't go to jail and just wanted to end it. When asked why he did it, Robinson explained, there is too much evil and the guy referring to Charlie Kirk spreads too much hate.

A (11:15)

This is where, once again, it's reasonable to debate the narrative we're being told and the facts as they appear. Let's put the messages between the trans identifying roommate and the shooter up on the screen. And what happened is that after the shooting, the shooter texted his furry roommate, His. His trans. Furry roommate that he needed to read a note that the shooter had placed underneath the keyboard. And then when the roommate reads the note which confesses that he shot Charlie Kirk, the roommate says, what? You're joking, right? And in response, the shooter writes, quote, I'm still okay, my love, but I'm stuck in Orem for a little while longer yet. Shouldn't be long until I can come home, but I gotta grab my rifle. Still, to be honest, I'd hope to keep the secret till I die of old age. I am sorry to involve you. The response from the furry gay roommate is, quote, you weren't the one who did it. Right answer. I am. I'm sorry. Now, already. There's something more than a little off here. They're not talking like young people in their early 20s. There's no emojis or, you know, shorthand or anything like that. Instead, the shooter is talking like a, you know, like a. A medieval knight who's late for dinner at Camelot or something. My love, I'm stuck here for a little while longer yet. Is this how people speak to each other in hedonistic homosexual Reddit relationships? And then he casually mentions. Casually mentions the rifle, giving the roommate the opportunity to make it clear that he knew nothing about the assassination. Quote, why did I do it? I had enough of this hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out. How long have you been planning this? A bit over a week, I believe. I'm wishing I had circled back and grabbed the rifle as soon as I got to my vehicle. Close quote. Now, again, not to. Not to get too much into semantics and that sort of thing, but, you know, no one refers to their car as my vehicle. And again, that's not how normal human beings interact with one another, especially people this age. You would say, as soon as I got back to my car. Right, not my vehicle. But more importantly, imagine that your roommate and gay lover has just admitted that he's committed a gruesome assassination. The first question you would ask probably wouldn't be, oh, really? How long have you been planning that? It couldn't possibly be long enough for me to notice, right? Like that's just not going to be your first answer. Someone comes in and says, I assassinated this political figure. How long have you been planning that? Instead, you probably respond immediately with shock and horror. And then you tell him to turn himself in and call the police yourself. I mean, you'd be far too panicked and far too confused to do much more than that. But that's not what happened here. As far as we know, this roommate didn't contact law enforcement even though a murderer was about to head back to his apartment. Instead, he simply stopped responding to the shooter, who proceeded to make a series of additional statements that incriminated him and him alone. Quote, if I'm able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence. I'm worried what my old man would do if I'd bring back. If I didn't bring back grandpa's rifle. I don't know if I had a serial number, but I wouldn't. It wouldn't trace to me. I worry about prints. I had to leave it in a bush where I changed outfits. Remember how I was engraving bullets? The messages are mostly a big meme. Now, this is supposedly an intelligent individual who, who received a scholarship to a state university in Utah because of his near perfect grades and test scores. And he appears to be completely unaware that security cameras exist. He also doesn't seem to realize how easy it would be to trace the rifle directly to him if the authorities recovered it. He also doesn't seem to consider the risks involved in writing a confession. In, you know, putting a confession in writing, using text messages, literally writing, here's how I hid the evidence in a text message that can easily be obtained by law enforcement. We're supposed to believe that neither of these guys realize that the FBI can obtain your text messages even if you delete them. And it will take them like 45 seconds to do so. Instead, he's casually suggesting that he's going to get away with the single most high profile political assassination in a generation and that his biggest concern is explaining the missing rifle to his father or his old man, as he refers to him. He Says he had intended to take the secret to the grave with him, but instead he decided to confess to his roommate within like a few minutes. Now this is either extraordinary stupidity which, which is written in very stilted and unnatural fashion, written in a language that sounds like ChatGPT or something, or it's a pre planned effort to absolve the roommate and others of any responsibility. Those are the two options here. And you're not crazy if you're leaning towards the latter. That's, that's, that's very much what it sounds like. And even if you accept these texts as completely honest and above board, you still have to explain this line quote. Remember how I was engraving bullets? The message are mostly a big meme. Remember how I was engraving bullets? I mean that's, that's a pretty big red flag as far as red flags go. After all, it's, it's, it's not every day that you come across your roommate engraving bullets with any messages at all, much less messages like hey fascist, catch you. You don't engrave bullets to go hunting or to go target shooting. You don't engrave bullets when you're going out to the range. You don't engrave bullets you might use for self defense. There would be no point. On the other hand, if you want to send a message after you commit a terrorist attack, it makes perfect sense to engrave bullets. Like engraving bullets is something that mass shooters and, and political assassins do and nobody else ever. So why didn't this trans identifying roommate ask, ask about any of this? When, when according to, he saw his gay lover carving messages into ammunition. How did he react to that? If he reacted at all? Those are questions that federal investigators have to answer. I mean every indication we have right now, whether it's coming from these ridiculous substack articles or the shooter himself, is that a cover up Is underway. The official story does not make any sense. Were led to believe as hundreds of thousands of leftists openly celebrated the murder of a conservative political figure. Something that conservatives haven't done in the modern history of this country. That somehow all the people close to the shooter were horrified by what he had done. The Discord server was mortified. The furry roommate was stunned. The furry roommate that had seen him carving bullets was stunned. No idea. That's what we're supposed to believe. We're supposed to believe that he was radicalized into left wing trans extremism and began plotting the most high profile political assassination of the century. And did all this without anyone knowing and without his trans boyfriend who lives with him catching wind of it, even though the boyfriend literally saw him engraving left wing extremist messaging into bullets. From a rational perspective, the propaganda is not convincing. I mean, at this point, any honest person understands that Charlie Kirk's assassination was an act of left wing LGBT terrorism and that we're being lied to. And to be perfectly clear, again, again, I have absolutely no doubt that this was left wing terrorism. That's what this was. This was left wing terrorism. Left wing terrorists are the greatest domestic terror threat that we face. They have been killing for years. They killed Charlie Kirk, they will kill again. But is there a conspiracy involved in this? I think very likely there is. The conspiracy, though, if there is, one is among the other left wing militants who potentially plotted the attack or knew about it and then staged these messages and communications after the fact that to absolve themselves. Remember, there were trans, there were trans activists, trans accounts on, on X, talking about this shooting before it happened, which is very, very good indication that it was known before it happened, that there were discussions about it. And yet we're supposed to believe that he didn't discuss it with anybody? I don't believe that. I don't believe that. Was there a conspiracy here? I think all of the evidence and common sense points to, yes, a conspiracy. A far more wide ranging conspiracy among left wing militants. That is the conspiracy that I find very plausible and which must be investigated. And, and it's, it's very easy to see it's a very plausible scenario that he had help and he had coordination with other militants and the plan after the fact was that he was going to take the fall, and so he staged these communications that they knew would be found. And, and that's why it sounds like that's why. That's why. That's why that's what it sounds like. It sounds like this is exactly the conversation you would have if you're trying to check all the boxes to absolve this other guy and put it all on yourself. Meanwhile, the narrative machine is adapting. They're moving away from specific factual claims and entering the realm of perverse and deranged attempts at emotional manipulation. Here's ABC's Matt Gutman. For example. Watch.

B (21:18)

We have seen an alleged murder with such specific text messages about the alleged murder weapon with where it was hidden, how it was placed, what was on it. But also it was very touching in a way that I think many of us didn't expect. A very intimate portrait into this relationship between the suspect's roommate and the suspect himself with him repeatedly calling his roommate who was transitioning, calling him my love and I want to protect you, my love. So it was this duality of someone who the attorney said not only jeopardized the life of Charlie Kirk and the crowd, but was doing it in front of children, which is one of the aggravating circumstances of this case. And on the other hand, he was, you know, speaking so lovingly about his partner. So a very interesting and as Pierre said, riveting press conference.

A (22:04)

David, he's genuinely moved by these text messages. Between the cross dressing furry roommate and the murderer who just executed a leading conservative figure in front of thousands of students, including children, he's acting like it's a, you know, classic love story. The tale as old as time as the assassin discussed hiding incriminating evidence and demonstrated precisely zero remorse or sympathy for the man that he just murdered. ABC News reporter Matt Gutman was touched. He was moved by the duality of the messages. Of course, there's no duality here at all. These messages are evil whether you take them at face value or not. They reflect an ideology of hedonism and violence and murder that is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity and Western civilization that indeed is bent on the destruction of Christianity and of Western civilization. The shooter and his trans boyfriend, you know, they weren't. They weren't shacking up to glorify God. They didn't do that to bring any joy or new life into the world. But in order to commiserate, to hate, to bring others down to the level of their miserable, pathetic existence, that's exactly what they did. That's why one member of this pair, at least, one member at least just extinguished one of the leading Christian voices in the entire world. But at abc, the same network where Jimmy Kimmel works, by the way, incidentally, they're not horrified by any of this. They find it thrilling. They can't get enough of it. That's why 10 minutes after the segment aired, the same reporter doubled down. And in some ways, this segment's even worse than the first one. Watch.

B (23:36)

Children were present. Children witnessed this. Children were put in harm's way. And that was something that obviously is aggravating here. And that's one. One of the reasons, reasons that the suspect, in addition to the alleged murder, being political in nature, is facing the death penalty. They're going for the death penalty. And on the other hand, there is this duality of a very. A portrait of a very human person, a very human experience from this entire family. As you mentioned it, the mother essentially discovered that it Was her son who had done this. The kid who had got a 34 out of 36 on the acts, who had a 4.4.0, who got a full ride to college here. That that kid was the one who allegedly perpetrated. She saw those pictures and said identified him essentially. And then those text messages. And I don't think I've ever experienced a press conference in which we've read text messages that are a so fulsome, so robust, so apparently allegedly self incriminating and yet on the other hand, so touching.

A (24:31)

Right.

B (24:32)

With the suspect reaching out to his roommate who is allegedly his boyfriend, who we understand, you know, identified as male at birth, now identifies as female. And the terminology he used, he was trying to protect him. He kept calling him my love. My reason for doing this is to protect you, you know, but also asking him to delete the messages and not speak to law enforcement. So there's this, this heartbreaking duality that we're seeing very tragically playing out.

A (25:01)

After his report, no producer got in his ear and told him to knock it off. No one at ABC had any issue with what. So he said it again with even more emphasis this time. He's happy to wax poetic about a murderer's standardized test scores and his touching conversations right after he shot Charlie Kirk to death. All these people need to be taken off the air immediately. Jimmy Kimmel, Matt Gutman, all these people should not be allowed on the air by their networks. I mean, it is irredeemable. And that's not just because of their response to the murder of Charlie. Although by itself that would be more than enough. It's because, as everyone can now see, corporate outlets like ABC go out of their way to hide the truth about transgenderism and leftist extremism and the violence that it unleashes on America every day. They exist to hide the truth. Here's just one example of a story that they bury. This is from about a month before Charlie's assassination. Watch. A Washington city woman accused of killing her parents is back in the headlines, this time appealing directly to the Utah Supreme Court. 29 year old Mia Bailey is facing 10 felony charges, including two counts of aggravated murder and one count of attempted aggravated murder. After the shocking deaths of her parents, Joseph and Gail Bailey. Authorities say Bailey also attempted to shoot her brother that same night. She was arrested the next day and has remained in jail ever since, held without bail. Bailey, a transgender woman who legally changed her name and gender in 2023, now finds herself at the center of a legal twist in late June Bailey submitted a written request to the judge appealing to the state's decision not to seek the death penalty. Did you hear about this story? Probably not. No one did. I only saw it because of, you know, a Random X account posted the footage. A cross dresser in Utah was. Was supposedly transitioning from male to female. He decides to shoot both of his parents to death. After being arrested, he shows no remorse at all. And then when the state announces that it won't pursue the death penalty, he files a motion requesting that the state change its mind and execute him. This demon actually wants to be put to death. That's an unusual motion, to say the least. Kind of thing that in a sane society might get some coverage and some attention, but no one talked about this case. Jimmy Kimmel and Matt Gutman certainly didn't talk about it. And we all know why. The vast majority of trans violence goes unreported unless trans identifying individuals cause mass casualties at schools, churches, or conservative events, which they're doing with increasing frequency, as you've probably noticed. Then no one hears about the murders that they're committing against family members or other individuals that they know personally. This is an epidemic of violence that's being hidden deliberately. The Trump administration has the opportunity right now to dismantle this threat. The entire industry of transgenderism must be outlawed. No healthy individual should ever be injected with cross sex hormones, much less mutilated, ever again. And the terror cells that openly advocate for murder on platforms like Reddit, Blue Sky, Discord must be shut down. Everybody involved hauled to prison. That's how you prevent these militants from coordinating and finding affirmation in their delusions. That's how you prevent them from killing any more of us. One of the many things Charlie accomplished better than anyone else was to have the kind of discussions that aren't allowed on major television networks or social media platforms. So we're going to end with this. It's a clip from one of Charlie's recent campus debates. About four months ago, a sociology professor walks up to the microphone. He asked Charlie what Donald Trump is doing to improve the lives of students. And here's how Charlie responded. What I would love to hear from you genuinely, is what you believe the Trump administration has done in these first four months that is making the economic futures of these young people better.

D (28:53)

Yeah, I mean, look, he's been in office for like, what, 80 days, but quite a lot. Number one, the price of oil is already down, so it's easier for everyone here to be able to drive home the gas is going to be cheaper, which also will lower inflation. Inflation. Number two, a tax bill will hopefully passed which is no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, largest middle class tax cut in history. So everyone here that's going to have a job where overtime is incorporated, the they'll be able to keep more of their money. Number three, we're opening up federal lands to build more homes, which is a great thing because homeownership is way inaccessible for a lot of people in this audience and it's going to take some time. And one of the main reasons why President Trump won is because we were able to move the youth vote rather significantly and substantially because the Democrat Party A, took younger voters for granted. I think we can agree on that.

A (29:37)

Absolutely.

D (29:38)

And B, they did not have an optimistic, hopefully agenda for homeownership for getting married and having children in this country. So I would like to see the Trump administration go even further and make it so that every young person in this country can have accessibility to be able to own a home. I think they should prohibit major funds like BlackRock from buying up private family homes so that we have to compete against them. And I'll just do another thing on privately lobbying for and publicly, because I'll say it here is I don't think the Chinese Communist Party should be able to buy up farmland in the western part of the United States. And with that, single family homes. So that's just some of the ideas here.

A (30:18)

Sure, sure. So can I, can I respond? I actually agree with most of what you're saying. You can tell from the applause that by and large, young people want to hear exactly what Charlie is saying. They want an administration that will make housing more affordable. They want an administration that will stand up to China and blackrock and the big institutional buyers of suburban homes. They want cheaper gas so their commute is more manageable. These are all proposals that for the typical leftists would seem to align with their agenda. They're certainly not anything like what you would hear from, you know, Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or George Bush back in the day. What Charlie is saying is, is, is more populous than, than anything else. Bernie Bros. Would endorse every word of it. I, as you saw in that footage, even the sociology professor was on board with what Charlie was saying. And maybe that explains why ABC and many other corporate networks have decided to defame Charlie in death. Maybe that's why they're deliberately inciting LGBT terrorism and celebrating it when it happens. Charlie was resonating with a wide swath of people really across the political spectrum. That's what made him so dangerous. And he actually believed in free expression and advancing the interests of people who had no voice. That's why I spent so much time on college campuses listening to random college students recite their orthodoxy and demand debating them with respect and patience in every single case. He didn't have to do that. He had much more important people he could be talking to. He could have spent his whole career speaking to millionaires and billionaires, but he didn't. Unlike Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or Adam Schiff, he actually cared about what no name 18 year olds had to say because he recognized their importance, not simply as voters, but also as human beings with inherent value. That's why I appeared in public so often in wide open venues. And that's why he was murdered. It's been a week since that day. The official narrative that the media and leftist mouthpieces are trying to push remains incoherent. The test text messages don't make any sense. Some of the major news networks have decided to glorify the killers. Many leftists are openly celebrating Charlie's death. This is not sustainable and it's not tolerable. The administration must demonstrate clear and discreet progress in dismantling left wing terror organizations, starting with the cult of trans ideology. And it needs to do so immediately. The opportunity is there. If the last 24 hours have made anything clear, it's that these people are panicking. They're desperately trying to come up with some new defense or distraction, however implausible it may be. They know the hammer is coming down and now it's time to deliver the blow they're expecting and the one they deserve. When was the last time you bragged about your wireless company? Like did you know my wireless company gave away a thousand American flags to deserving vets and forgave $10 million in veteran debt to. Did you know my wireless company raised almost half a million dollars to prevent veteran suicide? When your wireless company is Pure Talk, there's a whole lot to brag about. You can even brag about the coverage you get with pure talk. A 5G network that is insanely fast, dependable and secure. And you can brag about how much money you save with Pure Talk. Unlimited Talk text and 15 gigs of high speed data is just 35 bucks a month with mobile hotspot. It's important to support companies that support you and your values. And PureTalk does just that. It's one of the many reasons why I love PureTalk. It's time to switch to my wireless company PureTalk. But if you need another reason, something you can really brag about, PureTalk is the only wireless company that gives you a one year free membership to Daily Wire plus when you go to PureTalk.com Walsh Again, choose a qualifying plan at PureTalk.com Walsh and relish your free one year membership to Daily Wire plus PureTalk Wireless. Worth bragging about to go right from the opening to the cancellation today, it'll be a slightly abbreviated show and I want to. I want to talk about this. The assassination of Charlie Kirk was one of the most direct and consequential attacks on the freedom of speech in American history. And regardless of your political beliefs, that's undeniable. For Christians and conservatives in particular, the assassination was the latest and most horrifying of many, many recent efforts to undermine our fundamental civil liberties. Christians have been arrested for praying peacefully outside of abortion clinics. They've been punished for refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings, for refusing to fund contraceptives for employees. And now, in a very public fashion, one of the most prominent Christian voices in the country was gunned down for expressing his political views and his faith. Now, in the wake of Charlie's murder, I said something that I still believe is true. I still very much believe, which is that on the right, and only on the right, now is the time for unity. And I say only on the right because that's the only place where there can be unity. There cannot be unity with the left. It is literally impossible. They want us dead. They want to kill us. And even if they didn't, we have nothing in common in terms of our values and beliefs and priorities. We have no common ground at all. None. We cannot agree on even what universe we live in. But on the right, there needs to be unity. We have to put aside any internal squabbling or vendettas that we might have on our own side. And we have to focus instead on crushing left wing extremism, including the cult of trans ideology. We have to pursue the billionaires who fund this extremism, the NGOs that launder the billionaires money, the doctors and hospitals that mutilate patients for ideological and financial reasons. This has to be a coordinated and focused effort. There's no room for any distraction or counter signaling. It's not an easy task. Our opponents are extremely well funded, very powerful. But if we cannot accomplish this, then very soon the right to freedom of speech will become a dead letter, if it's not already. The collapse of our constitutional order will follow and therefore a unified Right is more important than it's ever been if we're gonna have any chance of victory now. At the same time, unity is impossible if some conservatives, particularly conservatives in positions of power, don't grasp the fundamental goals of our movement. And that's why, although it's obviously not an ideal situation, I wish we didn't have to do this right now. We do need to talk at some length about the recent remarks of Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, particularly what she said on a podcast hosted by Katie Miller, who's the wife of top White House advisor Stephen Miller. Now, you may have seen portions of this interview online, but I'm going to play footage with some more context. Put bluntly, these remarks, along with her job performance in other areas, disqualify Pam Bondi from serving as the Attorney General of the United States. They make it very clear that she is not equipped to lead the war on left wing domestic terrorism that must urgently be waged. And when I talked about unifying on the right, I did, as you remember, make an explicit exception for politicians and public officials. And this is why we still need to be able to criticize them when they drop the ball. And Pam Bondi is dropping the ball egregiously. So here's the footage. Watch.

E (37:28)

These universities are complicit in allowing conservatives to be harassed on campus. And what happens when you allow a university to harass conservatives and don't expel or don't take an action is what happened last week. It is. And you know, on a broader level, the anti Semitism, what's been happening at college campuses around this country is disgusting, it's despicable. And we've been fighting that. We've been fighting these universities left and right and we're not going to stop. There's free speech and then there's hate speech. And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society. Do you see more law enforcement going after these groups who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people? So we show them that some action.

A (38:15)

Is better than no action.

E (38:16)

We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything. And that's across the aisle. I mean, look what happened. Think about Josh Shapiro, what happened to Governor Shapiro. I talked to Josh multiple times. Democrat, Governor, Jewish. They firebombed his house while his wife and children were sleeping upstairs. It's a miracle nothing worse happened. It's a miracle that nothing happened to Josh and he and his family are safe.

A (38:50)

This should not need to be said but the concept of hate speech should never be invoked by anyone, much less a conservative, and much less a conservative who's the highest law enforcement official in the United States of America. Hate speech is not a real thing. Hate speech is not a valid legal category. As Charlie Kirk himself argued, hate speech is. If it's anything, it's protected speech. Period. You can say hateful things. You have the legal right to say hateful things. Could say the most hateful, bigoted thing you want to say, and the government has no right to punish you for it. Now, you could be. There could be social consequences. There could be cultural consequences. Other people can decide that they don't want to associate with you anymore because you say horrible, vile things and revealed yourself to be a horrible, vile person. That can happen, obviously, but. But the. The government cannot punish you on the basis that what you said was hateful. You could say hateful things. You. You could say hateful things about me, you could say hateful things about. About Christians and conservatives. You can say hateful things about homosexuals. You can target anyone you want with your hateful speech. It is your constitutional right to do so. Again, there might be social consequences, but there should be no legal consequences. And the alternative, as we see in authoritarian regimes like the uk, Canada or North Korea, is that legitimate political discourse will inevitably be labeled hate speech by the people in charge. If I recorded my podcast, this very podcast, in London, I'd be arrested by now. They're dragging comedians and single mothers to prison because they oppose transgenderism and open borders. That's what hate speech means in practice. It means suspending the freedom of expression. It means forcing people to say things that they know are false. At the White House, Stephen Miller, who has vowed to dismantle left wing terror groups following Charlie's assassination, understands this very well. Without mentioning Pam Bondi by name, he put. He basically put her on blast, essentially saying, quote, the path forward is not to mimic the ACLU of the mid-90s. It's to take all necessary and rational steps to save Western civilization. That's about as clear as it gets. Stephen Miller, who has been absolutely excellent through all of this, by the way, and through Trump's whole term, absolutely great. He understands that hate speech is a concept that was invented by the left for the purpose of silencing conservative voices. It's a concept that's emboldened extremists, including LGBT terrorists. After all, when the government says it's hateful to affirm the truth, it legitimizes some of the most deranged and psychotic members of society. None of this should require any explanation for anyone, much less the Attorney General. But here we are. The day after this podcast aired, Pam Bondi attempted to clean up her remarks in a post on X. Here's what she wrote. Quote, hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is not protected by the First Amendment. It's a crime. It is a crime. For far too long, we've watched the radical left normalize threats, calls for assassination, and cheer on political violence. That era is over. Free speech protects ideas, debate, even dissent. But it does not. It will never protect violence. It is clear that this violent rhetoric is designed to silence others. Others from voicing conservative ideals. Now, most of this post is correct. Threats are not protected under the First Amendment. Inciting Violet. Inciting violence is in calling people to commit violence against some other person is not protected by the First Amendment. And leftists are attempting to silence conservative speech using threats of violence as well as actual violence. But in her post, Bondi still uses the term hate speech as if it's a real thing. And that's completely unacceptable and, frankly, embarrassing. Hate speech is. Is. Hate speech is distinct from threats. Threats are threats. You don't need to use the word hate speech when you're talking about threats. Just say threats. Hate speech is an un American, totalitarian concept that should never be endorsed in this country. Period. Now, if you're tempted to make the argument that Bondi slipped up twice, she should be given another chance. Try answering this question. What has Bondi accomplished while in office? I mean, what. Name a single achievement. Name one thing she's done which would suggest that she's capable of dismantling Antifa and the trans industry and the LGBT terror cells that are celebrating Charlie's assassination. Just give me one example. You probably can't, because everything Bondi has done has been a monumental failure. She botched the Epstein investigation as well. As we all know, she claimed the DOJ had uncovered tons of evidence in the FBI's New York field office that incriminated a lot of people and then told us that we can't see any of it because it's too graphic. She claims she had a client list on her desk and nothing. You know, and then. And then we're told that there was no list. She staged that embarrassing and incomprehensible stunt with the Epstein binders, and now, in the wake of Charlie Kirk's murder, she's talking about arresting people for hate speech. And by the way, not that it's the most important part of her response. But Josh Shapiro's house was not burned down because of hate speech. It was burned down because of a deranged leftist who was upset about Gaza, decided to commit an act of domestic terrorism. The burning of Josh Shapiro's mansion was yet another example of left wing violent extremism. And here's the key point. No one on the right celebrated the attack on Josh Shapiro's residence. Not a single person. It wasn't remotely like the response to Charlie's assassination. There's just no comparison here. And while we're at it, the lunatic who killed Melissa Hortman in Minnesota was a Tim Walls appointee, a psychotic who says that Tim Walls hired him to kill her. The guy who hit Paul Pelosi with a hammer lived in a Berkeley commune with BLM signs right out front. These were not right wing attacks either, and once again, they certainly were not celebrated by the right. But Bondi wants to both sides this whole thing, even though it's abundantly clear that political violence in this country only ever goes one way. And that's not all. When it comes to embarrassing herself, Pam Bondi has been very busy lately. In case you missed it, a couple of. A couple of Office Depot employees refused to print a sign honoring Charlie Kirk for a memorial service, you know, the other day. And they said they wouldn't, they wouldn't print the signs. The employees, who looked about as grotesque and miserable as you'd expect, claimed that the signs were propaganda. Office Depot responded by firing one of the employees and clarifying the signs were not propaganda and that they could be printed. And here's how Pam Bondi responded to that incident. Watch this.

E (45:24)

That's horrific. It's free speech. But you shouldn't be employed anywhere if you're going to say that. And employers, you have an obligation to get rid of people. You need to look at people who are saying horrible things and they shouldn't be working with you. Businesses cannot discriminate. If you want to go in and print posters with Charlie's pictures on them for a vigil, you have to let them do that. We can prosecute you for that. I have Harmeet Dhillon right now in our civil rights unit looking at that immediately. That Office Depot had done that. We're looking at that now.

A (45:53)

To be clear, the Office Depot employees who refuse to print the sign for Charlie's memorial are scumbags, horrible human beings. That doesn't mean that the federal government can force Office Depot to print the signs. That's not the job of the federal government. Just Like a Christian baker doesn't have to bake a cake. Cake. Bake. Bake a gay wedding cake if he doesn't want to. Office Depot doesn't have to print a sign for a Charlie Kirk Memorial if they don't want to. It's possible for people to do horrible things without the federal government getting involved. And most importantly, okay, most importantly, conservatives have fought for decades with some very significant success to secure the right to, to refuse service to anyone. We have been beating this drum over and over and over again for years. This is freedom of association. It's freedom of speech. And now Bondi is attempting to unilaterally just roll back all of that after years and years of conservatives very clearly and explicitly saying that businesses have the right to refuse service. Now we have Bondi claiming that, in fact they don't, that if you want a flyer printed, you have a right to have it printed, and the printing place has no right to not print it. That's what she's claiming. And it's total nonsense. It's just nonsense. It's also egregiously unnecessary. Okay? The Office Depot issue was already handled by conservatives using our free speech. It's. It's been handled. It's been handled exactly the way that we said these issues should be. What have we been saying for years? For years we've been saying, well, if a business doesn't want to bake a gay cake, they shouldn't have to. And then the left says, well, what if they refuse service to you? Should they be allowed to do that? Yes. No, they should. I don't think. I don't think they should. Right. I, I wouldn't agree with it if they refuse service to me for my political views, but, yeah, they should have that right. Well, would you go then complain and tell everyone? Yeah, maybe I would. I mean, then I have the right. If I get refused service, they have the right to do that. I have the right to go and, and tell everybody that, hey, this company over here, if you're conservative, they hate you and so you shouldn't support them. I have the right to do that. That is totally. I'm not using force. This is not the government imposing anything. This is them with their own freedom and the free market saying they don't want to serve me. And then it's me with my free speech and my freedom of association telling, you know, people that are on my side that, hey, they don't want you. That, that all that's how these things should be handled. And, and also, that was Always our response when people said, oh, well, if you let them refuse service for a gay wedding, then what happens if, you know, next thing you know, you have a restaurant that says, we're not going to serve black people. What is our response been to that? You know, they said, well, should a restaurant be able to refuse service to black people? Yeah, they should actually. They should have that right. You should be able to refuse service to anyone. You do not. You should not be compelled by the government to, to provide service to anybody. It's your company, it's your business. You can do what you want. However, what. What have we always said? It's like, okay, well, first of all, it's not going to happen. Okay? No, no restaurant is going to say, we're not going to serve black people. It's not just not going to actually happen. And if it did, that restaurant would be out of business in like, 50 seconds. Okay? By the end of the day, they'd be out of business because many other people in the free market using their free speech, would, Would. Would be, you know, calling attention to that and that that company would be out of business almost immediately. You know, that's how these things would work, which is why you don't need the government stepping in. So you have to, you know, litigating these sorts of issues, let every company provide service to whoever they want, and then, and then, as a society, we'll work that out. And in this case, it's exactly how it went. The company fired the employee, they pledged to print the flyers. The issue was solved. It's over, it's done. We were able to, as conservatives, stick to our freedom of association principles while also getting accountability for the vile person who refused to print the flyers. We won. And now Pam Bondi wants to swoop in after the fact and sabotage everything. And worst of all, she's doing it in the name of Charlie Kirk. Charlie was one of the main proponents of freedom of association and freedom of speech in the country. Charlie abhorred the idea of hate speech laws. Now, there have been far too many people in the past week speaking for Charlie, saying what he would or would not want. But in this case, I can say with absolute certainty that Charlie would not want hate speech laws to be created and enforced in his name. He understood the idea that speech isn't illegal just because it's viewed as hateful, whatever that means. But our Attorney General, the one person who should understand this concept better than anybody, is as clueless as she's ever been. She stands in the way of our very urgent mission, which is to dismantle left wing terror cells, left wing NGOs that threaten our fundamental right to freedom of speech. We need an attorney general who's up to this enormous gargantuan task which is before us. A serious person who can tackle the challenge challenge with decisiveness and clarity. Pam Bondi is not that person. And that's why Trump has to cut her loose. That's also why she is today canceled. That'll do for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Godspeed. Hey there. I'm Daily Wire Executive editor John Bickley. And I'm Georgia Howe and we're the hosts of Morning Wire. We bring you all the news you need to know in 15 minutes or less. Watch and listen to Morning Wire seven days a week.

E (52:02)

And everywhere you get your podcasts.

A (52:08)

Martha listens to her favorite band all the time. In the car, gym, even sleeping. So when they finally went on tour, Martha bundled her flight and hotel on Expedia to see them live. She saved so much, she got a seat close enough to actually see and hear them. So what, Doc? You were made to save scream from the front row. We were made to quietly save you more Expedia made to Travel savings vary and subject to availability. Light inclusive packages are atoll protected.