The US dollar has lost 85% of its value since the 70s, when the dollar decoupled from gold, and the government seems bent on continuing the tradition.
Charlie Kirk here. From now until after the elections, the government can print as much money as they want. The last time they did that, inflation went up 9%. Gold is the only asset that has proven to withstand inflation. Invest in gold with Noble Gold Investments. You will get a 24-carat, one-fourth of an ounce gold standard coin for free. Just use promo code KIRK. Go to noblegoldinvestments.com.
That's noblegoldinvestments.com, the only gold company I trust. Hey everybody, to end the Charlie Kirk show, Dr. Pierre Corey joins us about the war on Ibermectin. May we never forget what they did to early treatments. It's evil. It's evil. Then Alan Dershowitz joins us. Professor Alan Dershowitz joins us to talk about the indictments against Donald Trump and why he's more fired up than ever.
It's a great conversation. Email us your thoughts. It's always freedom at charliekirk.com. Get involved with Turning Point USA at tpusa.com. That's tpusa.com. Start a high school or college chapter today at tpusa.com.
Tpusa.com. Buckle up everybody. Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country.
He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created. Turning Point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here.
Brought to you by the loan experts I trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandtodd.com. We have joining us momentarily Dr. Pierre Corey, who's the author of The War on Ivermectin. This is a very important topic. And you might say, well, Charlie, you know, the COVID stuff is over. Hold on a second. No, no, no. This was one of the great cover ups of our time.
The fraud, the deception, the lying, the authoritarianism, the doublespeak. As if no one is noticing, the CDC, the FDA, is it the CDC or the FDA? The FDA? The FDA now says Ivermectin perfectly fine for treating COVID. You remember back when they called it horse paste, that we actually lost access to our social media because we even recommended Ivermectin? How many millions of lives could have been saved? Not necessarily just domestically, but internationally. How many hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved?
We don't know. Pharmacies would not fill prescriptions for Ivermectin. I was with a pharmacist last night in Washington.
She came up to me at an event, said, Charlie, I was fired from my job for fulfilling legitimate prescriptions for Ivermectin. How many people have gone to jail for this? This is one of the most evil campaigns that we have seen. To date, no one has been held accountable for it. Anthony Fauci is making more money than ever lecturing at Georgetown University.
Play cut seven, please. We learned this morning that the FDA is now saying that it's OK to take Ivermectin if you have COVID. And Marie, you know, the doctors I've been dealing with and talking to for years now, they believe that probably hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their lives because they were denied early treatment. And they were denied it because the FDA sabotaged, for example, Ivermectin, who said, come on, y'all, you're not a cow, you're not a horse.
This is supposedly horse medicine. No, this is a Nobel Prize winning medicine that could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. They needed to demonize early treatments because early treatments then would have prevented panic around the virus, would prevented lockdowns, prevented vaccine mandates. The cause set in motion was they needed to kill in the crib and excuse the graphic detail there, the idea of early treatments. Joining us now is a hero, Dr. Pierre Corey, who has been a dog with a bone with this and has been outspoken and clear. Doctor, I hate to say we knew you were right all along your book, Everyone Should Check Out The War on Ivermectin. What is your reaction now that the government is repeating what you have been saying for years?
Well, Charlie, finally, we got him a little bit right. So that court case last week, the FDA lawyer looked like a fool. I mean, you could see them backtracking. We knew what they were doing the whole time. And now they have to admit it right. They're sheepishly admitting that their guidance were just quips. That's literally what they said. Oh, we were just quipping. Right.
Which is a kind of a humorous phrase or a witty, witty phrase. That's not what we pay the FDA to do. And they clearly were intervening in the practice of medicine, which they have no authority to do. And we also know it's beyond the FDA. It's literally the synchronized coordination of all three agencies to suppress early treatment. And I appreciate what you just said. You know, you described it as evil and millions of lives lost.
Those are both true statements. The challenge that I have is the individual people who are part of that, who work in those agencies and are doing those actions. I don't know that they individually understand what impacts their actions are having. But this is a massive story. I mean, the FDA finally admits something that we already knew, which is that off label prescribing is legal, not only legal, but it's championed by the FDA.
They want us to use off label drugs because we know there's a lot of diseases in which already approved drugs are effective and we should be using those physicians to help our patients. And and now the truth comes out after after two years of just disinformation and propaganda. It was pure disinformation and propaganda. And some Americans are now just all rolling their eyes, shrugging their shoulders, whatever distant memory.
We cannot forget this story, everybody. Think about how many kids had to have school lockdowns because the virus was such a big threat. Think about how many kids committed suicide because of the lockdowns. How many students that are still experiencing depression and anxiety?
They're on benzos or Xanax or Zoloft or some form of that because of the lockdowns. We are still living with the consequences. If we would have been able to have Dr. Corey early treatments, we would have been a freer society. Is that fair to say?
There's no question. I mean, early treatments were a major, major impediment to the prepaying goals of the covid response. Right. Which was this global vaccination campaign. And that's what everyone needs to understand about why these actions were taken against ivermectin and also hydroxychloroquine.
Right. Is that they were effective early treatments, which would have decimated. First of all, would remove the ability to give an emergency use authorization for the vaccines. And it would have absolutely skyrocketed vaccine hesitancy.
Come on. All of your listeners, all of my colleagues, all everyone that I know in my in my life would have rather taken one of the safest drugs in history than an experimental gene therapy shot. I mean, it was so important that they destroy the idea that there was an effective early treatment. And and I hope this sad, tragic tale is known by most.
And that's really what my book is about. I want people to know what they did, how they did it so that we can prevent this from happening again. We're not going to fall for these lies. Well, and I just one of the elements that still fires me up is when is Joe Rogan going to get his apology?
He was very close to losing his Spotify show, dangerously close. And he's a man of great courage. And, you know, on the conservative right, some people don't like Joe Rogan's politics.
I don't care. He stood up when we needed him and he and he had a series of interviews. And not to mention, remember his selfie video he did where they changed, by the way, the aesthetic on CNN to make him look greeny green and sickly. I don't know if people remember that. And Joe Rogan was just asking the question and they said, oh, no, no. Ivermectin was a horse dewormer actively involved in the murder of people is what the media was doing by saying that this drug is a horse dewormer. And you're going to die from it and all this. When is Joe Rogan going to get his apology?
Dr. Corey, he was he was just asking questions. This is this is this is maddening to me. Charlie, you know this.
We're never getting in politics. I know, but I'm being somewhat. But you're you're absolutely right. But let me put Joe Rogan's story into context. So there's a chapter in my book which is called the horse dewormer PR campaign. And I literally trace the structure, the roll out and the sequence, the chronological sequence of what that was. And it was triggered in the middle of August of 2021 when data came out showing that the prescriptions of Ivermectin in the United States were hitting 90,000 a week, which was like 20 times pre pandemic levels. The other side got spooked. And you can see in rapid sequence, the CDC sent out a memo to every State Department of Health, which got to every licensed doctor in that state, warning them that people were getting sick from overdoses of Ivermectin, which was totally false.
The the data that they provided was actually incorrect and overinflated. And after the CDC did that, the FDA followed up within two days with a tweet. Then you started to see a PR campaign. And the way I recognize them, a friend of mine told me this trick is that he calls them two by fours, which is two weeks, four different music sources, hammering, hammering, hammering the same story, synchronized, you know, memo messaging. And you got to see that right.
So horse dewormer, horse dewormer, horse dewormer, late night talk show host, daytime broadcasters, newspaper headlines. And here's the thing, Charlie, in the middle of it, on like September 3 or 5, Joe Rogan gets COVID and admits he took Ivermectin. So one of the things that I've been trying to tell Joe is like, dude, you got COVID in the middle of a global disinformation PR campaign against Ivermectin. And that's why he exploded in that issue is because they were literally making a major move to destroy Ivermectin.
And he came out again. And the book is The War on Ivermectin. Here's my take on it, which is the lockdowns were helpful politically to these tyrants and early treatments were a threat to tyranny. It's that you could go through the entire if you have early treatments, then you don't need an mRNA gene altering shot. If you have gene if you have early treatments, you don't have panic. If you have early treatments, you don't need lockdowns. If you have early treatments, you do not have massive trillions of dollars of bills being spent in Washington, D.C.
Early treatments was the cause set in motion. And they did everything they could, Dr. Corey. But I'll say this and I've said this privately before. You were terrific. You saved lives, Dr. Corey. You know that.
And I really you were you did a moral good for our society. Everyone check out the book, The War on Ivermectin. Right now, our world is changing in many uncomfortable ways. It's not just natural disasters, political and economic disasters. The bottom line is you must be prepared for anything to happen at a moment's notice. You won't get a warning.
This is not a movie. That's why the smartest thing you could do is invest in emergency food from PrepareWithKirk.com. As I speak, my patriot supply dot com is offering a deep discount on their popular three month emergency food kit. How does 25 percent savings sound? It's the biggest discount they offer and it doesn't come along very often. So act now and grab your 25 percent discount on each three month food kit you order. Get one kit per person in your family. You will not regret it. You are nine meals away from anarchy.
So do something about it. Go to PrepareWithKirk.com. That is PrepareWithKirk.com.
Save 20 percent today, 25 percent today before the sale is over. Go to PrepareWithKirk.com. That is PrepareWithKirk.com. You would think that a suspicious increase in young people dying would have our leaders talking. It's a very powerful piece that Dr. Corey authored, USAToday.com. More young Americans are dying and it's not COVID. Why aren't we searching for answers?
Dr. Corey, tell us about the piece and then speculate, if you will. Why are so many young people dying? Yeah, so, Charlie, I think you recognize the magnitude of that publication. So without tooting my own horn, I've written north of 15 op-eds in major media outlets throughout COVID. This one was probably the most important one yet for those of us deeply studied, not only in what you talked about, which is the millions of deaths caused by the suppression of early treatments. But let's now move on to the vaccines.
This vaccine escapade will go down in history as a humanitarian catastrophe. And we see it. We saw it in many different data sources. But the most compelling and the most disturbing and the least arguable is the data coming out of the actuarial societies, right? So the life insurance, their whole business is on data and trends and consistency and rates. And, you know, a year ago, at the end of 2021, one of the CEOs of one of the largest life insurance companies spoke frankly at this random event.
It was an Indiana Chamber of Commerce event. And he just started saying that they're seeing unprecedented deaths from young people. Yeah.
You remember that story? And some of us are paying attention, like you, Charlie, recognize it. And we thought it was momentous now radio silence throughout the media sphere and has been like that for a while. But the life insurance data keeps accumulating.
And it is devastating. And myself and an investigative journalist friend of mine, Mary Beth Pfeiffer, it was her idea. She came to me with the idea.
She said, hey, let's publish this op-ed. I'd been on that data for a while. And, you know, we basically just put out the data, which is just massive excess mortality in the healthiest people in society with a sudden rise in 2021. It's not the old people anymore. So why are young people suddenly dying? And it's not the opioid epidemic started 10 years ago. It didn't start in September of 2021.
Lockdowns didn't happen September 21. What happened in September 21 to lead to these unprecedented rises? And and just to go back to what that CEO said, right, is he said that a 10 percent rise in death claims in any sector that they ensure a 10 percent rise over year to year is a one in 200 year event. And they were reporting 38 percent increases in death claims amongst the healthiest sectors of society. And they were all occurring in the third quarter of 2021. And they were occurring in white collar workers. Let me just finish that last point. White collar workers, I'll leave you with the question. What happened in the third quarter of 2021 in the white collar workplace in America? Well, a safe and effective gene altering shot was thrust upon able bodied young men and women.
But I mean, I'm told I'm told that I'm a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist and I lose access to my social media. Is there any other explanation? Let's try to not do confirmation bias. What other explanation could it be?
Anything, please? Cannot think of anything with that tight temporal association. So even if you want to talk about glyphosate or the pesticides or global warming or opiate addiction or lockdown, there's nothing with temporal association. So so anything that preceded that rise has to be the most likely cause. And I cannot think of any other credible explanation than the sudden proliferation of workplace vaccine mandates and federal mandates. And there's other data showing that the government employed Americans died at far greater rates than anyone.
And that was exactly the time when federal employee mandates came out. I mean, Charlie, you and I both know the answer, but it is important to go through the exercise. You don't want to like be incorrect and establish.
Yeah. And I mean, I have very strong opinions, but I'm just searching for other answers. And does anybody care about finding the truth? That's what's even more disturbing, right? It's like the indifference to even want to look. That's part of the whole thing, though. Of course, they're not interested in the answer because these are the same people, our authorities, those who we entrusted with governing and navigating our public health literally led us to slaughter with these vaccines.
You think that they want to find out the truth of what they did and then have to admit it and know that they're responsible for the deaths of of hundreds of thousands of young, vibrant Americans in the prime of their lives? Never. Charlie, you know that. Dr. Pierre Corey, everybody should check out his book, The War on Ivermectin. If Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine would have been allowed in the hands of the American people, 2020 would have looked a lot different. 2021 would have looked a lot different. I think we would have had less social unrest. I really believe that. I think we would have had less suicide. I think we had a lot of these things that didn't make sense.
If we would have allowed to have early treatments and thank you for asking the question, Dr. Corey in USA Today, why are so many young people dying? Well, you've committed the crime of noticing. You're not allowed to do that, Dr. Corey. God bless you.
You're welcome back any time. Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here. Don't miss the most inspirational movie of the summer. Briar Cliffs Entertainment's The Hill, starring Dennis Quaid in theaters Friday, August 25th, the true life story of professional baseball player Ricky Hill. Growing up poor in small town, Texas, young Ricky discovers his extraordinary ability for hitting a baseball. But with leg braces and a degenerative spinal disease, the major leagues were just a dream that could never be courageously. He risks it all, defying his father's wish to follow in his footsteps, become a pastor. Ricky tries out for a major league scout pushing hard to overcome his disability. He goes on to become a baseball phenomenon.
Some dreams are unbreakable. The Hill, starring Dennis Quaid, Colin Ford and Scott Glenn, this true inspirational story about family, faith and a baseball miracle. Again, the story is about Ricky, who tries out as a major league scout, pushing hard to overcome the unthinkable. Do not miss The Hill, rated PG in theaters Friday, August 25th. Get your tickets now. Again, it's called The Hill, rated PG. It's in theaters Friday, August 25th.
Check out The Hill. Get Trump is the book. Everybody buy it and purchase it now. The threat to civil liberties due process and our constitutional rule of law by Alan Dershowitz. One of the most important books out currently. It tells you the whole ball game from one of the great legal minds, Alan Dershowitz.
Professor Dershowitz, thank you for joining us. There's been some breaking news. It seems that Donald Trump's about to be indicted in Fulton County. Something got posted briefly on their website that says that Donald Trump and others might be indicted. It's not exactly clear a violation of the Georgia RICO, which is Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
I'm a layman here, professor. Isn't that usually used against mobsters? Of course it is. In fact, I had a client once who was an Italian-American and he humorously said, hey, how come they call the statue RICO? That's my name. RICO, what did they call it? Morris or Charlie.
It's RICO. It was obviously intended to go after the mafia. I predicted this indictment in my book, Get Trump, which you so kindly mentioned. I predicted all four of these indictments and I now predict that none of them will hold up.
None of them will hold up. This indictment is based largely on that telephone call in which he said to Raffensperger, fine, not invent, not concoct, not manufacture. Find me seventeen hundred votes. Find means they're lost. They're there to be counted.
I just want you to look hard and count them. That isn't the basis for a criminal charge. Other than that, it looks like it's a replication of the D.C. case. Now, remember that the appropriate way of challenging an election, the legally appropriate way, is to put up a slate of alternate electors. That's the way it was done in Tilden Hayes. That's the way it was done in the 1960 election and validated by a court in Hawaii. That's the way it was done when I was involved in challenging the election of George Bush on behalf of Al Gore. I represented the voters of Palm Beach County and we were planning, obviously, to put up a slate of Florida electors who would represent what we believe, the courts ruled against us, but what we honestly believe was the electoral results in Florida. That's the way you challenge elections. You don't get local prosecutors or even special counsel to indict somebody for doing what has been done historically in the way of challenging elections. Or you go back and you read Professor Lawrence Tribe's memorandum. He was a Democrat who was one of the lawyers for Al Gore. He proposed this way of challenging the election.
And now his research assistant has proposed the similar way of challenging the election in 2020. But in one case, they're going after them criminally. That's just wrong. Yes, it is.
I want to ask you a technical question here, professor. So according to Reuters, the Fulton County posted their posted charges to their docket before the grand jury had finished. Does that mean why not? OK, so you know that it's going to indict.
It's just a matter of technicality. A grand jury will indict any sandwich which has Trump on it. You know that is for sure. So why not post it early?
Let the public get a head start. You know what's going to happen. Grand jurors of 23 chairs sitting around waiting to be moved and manipulated by the prosecution. All you need is 12 of the 23 to indict. They're almost always unanimous because they've heard only one side of the story and they've been told the defendant's guilty. The presumption of guilty of innocence disappears in the grand jury room.
So, you know, this was one of the honest approaches in law enforcement. Sure, they put up the indictment before it was actually voted. That's the way it actually works in practice. Yeah, so that just the question, there's no chance of saying this is tainted or dismissal based on that. It's just kind of a technical thing, right? It's a technical thing, but they'll challenge it.
They'll say this proves that there was no real process. But remember, too, grand juries are not required in state courts, only in the federal court. The constitutional requirement of grand jury only applies to the federal government. So it would not get into the federal courts or up to the Supreme Court, even if the grand jury had been tainted.
And it largely becomes a formality, like you said, a hand sandwich. And it's not exactly difficult to get a grand jury to agree to something. And so the book is Get Trump. We're going to see other actors involved here, professor, since they're going with RICO. Is it they're trying to create a set of circumstances where they want people to rat out Donald Trump to try to get less prison time or no prison time at all whatsoever? This feels as if like they're going after some sort of I mean, he says here, violation of the Georgia Rico Act, conspiracy to commit false statements and writings and conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree.
Professor, that's a fair amount of charges for a single phone call unless they're they're going after other elements of this, if I'm not mistaken, though. Oh, yeah, without a doubt, they're going after the entire process. And, you know, they're claiming that if you exaggerate or lie in politics and if you're Trump, that you can be indicted.
It's perfectly OK to lie on the other side. And we've seen so many lies, so many lies told during the first impeachment when I defended President Trump on the floor of the Senate. The Democrats had so many lies and, you know, no, that's politics. But suddenly, when it's Donald Trump, politics becomes a weapon of law enforcement and people indict others of an opposing party for doing things that their own party has done for years. You know, if you start making lying, not under oath, but just lying by politicians of crime, every congressional session will have to be held in Allenwood Prison because half the Congress would be there. That's just not what should be done in politics. If you don't like what one side says, answer them, show a better argument and vote against them.
But don't make it subject to criminal prosecution because they'll be tit for tat. As soon as the Republicans gain control of the Senate and the presidency, they will be going after. And I'll be on the other side complaining just as loudly as I'm complaining today because I'm not doing it on a partisan basis. I'm doing it in support and defense of the Constitution. So, Professor, last week we saw Jack Smith ask a court for a January 2nd trial date. And what is your reaction to that? It's so political.
I have been doing this 60 years, 60 years. I have never heard of a case of this complexity going to trial within six months of the indictment. It is so political. What Trump's team ought to do is go back and evaluate every single federal case over the last 10 years and see how much time there was between the indictment and the actual trial, particularly in complex cases like this. And you'll see the average is much closer to a year or even more than to this kind of thing. Yeah, it's unbelievably political. So then does it fall on the judge then?
Is that correct? So then the Trump team will say, we want more time and is the judge usually split the difference? What is the process then to determine the timeline? Well, here you have judges that are both being scrutinized. Judge Cannon in Florida is being attacked because she was appointed by Trump. So she is probably going to try to lean over backwards to appear to be fair. And the judge in the District of Columbia, appointed by Obama, with a long history of association with the Bois Shiller firm, the most conflicted and in my view, the most corrupt firm in modern history.
She's going to try to lean over backwards in the beginning to try to show that they're fair. And then when the trial comes up, we'll see what happens. And so then we have let me ask you, is there he very well might be standing trial for simultaneous indictments, or usually do the courts allow one trial to end for the other? Because then you have the New York case, you have civil cases.
So it will be for symbol cases. Criminal cases can be for civil cases. Generally, federal trials come before state trials.
In fact, already D.A. Bragg has said that he will defer to the federal court and put off his incredibly weak case in New York until after the Florida case. Now that there's a D.C. case, which is supposed to come before the Florida case, even though the indictment came after, we'll see. Judges have enormous discretion on scheduling trials, but they can't do it for political purposes. And it's clear to me that this effort to try to get this trial scheduled in January is completely political. The goal is to influence the election. And what they expect to do is get a conviction because of the veneer District of Columbia. Then it'll be reversed on appeal. But by the time it's reversed on appeal, the election will be over. It's crassly political.
We've explored this topic before, professor, but it's worth repeating. For so-called institutionalists that are running the Department of Justice, their indifference to how half the country has zero trust in what the DOJ does now is shocking. They don't care.
I want a country where I trust our Department of Justice. Well, the best example is yesterday's decision or the day before a couple of days ago's decision to appoint a special counsel in direct violation of the words of the applicable resolution. A regulation. The regulation says the person appointed must, shall, not may, shall be outside of the government. And Garland appoints somebody who was the U.S. attorney, obviously, who serves at the pleasure of the attorney general. That's precisely the opposite of what's supposed to be. And when you're going after and investigating the son of the incumbent president, you better dot every I and cross every T to start by appointing somebody who is ineligible under the regulations that are part of what regulates the Justice Department.
I just don't understand it. I always had high regard for Garland as a, you know, do it by the books guy, former judge, rule of law. Why would he start by appointing somebody who is ineligible to be appointed under the very regulation that he's citing? I wish he would explain it or maybe Congress can ask him to explain. Yes.
So just really quick, then, professor, I know it's a simple question. Who could hold the DOJ accountable for breaking the law? Congress. Congress can. They can have hearings and they can call Garland and say, look, here's the statute, Section 603. Read it.
It says shall you understand the meaning of the word shall. Did you know? Why didn't you mean that kind of question is obvious. And under our system of checks and balances, it's the appropriate role of Congress to ask those hard questions. And Garland cannot refuse to appear and answer those questions. The book is Get Trump. And, professor, I want to say you're you're rightfully intense and angry about this stuff today and because of your love of the Constitution. And I share that anger because this is one unprecedented thing after the other. And it's it's really the shredding of of the core document that ties us of the United States Constitution. So the book is Get Trump. Everybody check it out.
It's excellent. Professor Dershowitz, you're fired up today for good reason. Are you are you seeing any indication amongst any of the classical liberals, not leftists, liberals that still speak to you that they think this is an overreach, that they're a little uncomfortable with how the government is treating Donald Trump or is yes.
OK, tell us about that. I don't see it widespread because most people who claim to be liberals are anything but most people who claim to be progressive or woke or anything. But they are Stalinists. Many of them who just want to suppress any free speech or due process that doesn't satisfy their own goals. But there are a handful of classic liberals still left.
Jack Oldsmith wrote a piece in The New York Times the other day saying, although there's an argument that maybe Trump did commit crimes, he shouldn't be prosecuted because he's running for president against the incumbent. And you have to be absolutely certain that you have a slam dunk case if you're going to go after that. Otherwise, you're a banana republic.
You know, on my podcast, I do a podcast Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday on Rumble. I give out bananas and we're up to two, maybe three bananas on a scale of 10. Ecuador gets 10 for obviously assassinating a presidential candidate. We're not close to that, hopefully, thank God.
But what we're doing now earns at least two or three bananas on the scale of banana republics. And that's what worries me. When you're going after the man running for president against the incumbent, you have to lean over backwards to be absolutely fair. You have to make sure you're not stretching the law, stretching the facts, but that you're applying it absolutely fairly in the same way you would apply it to members of your own party. That test has not been satisfied.
No, and I'm I'm not sure how we remedy this, professor. Do you if I think it would be a little bit of a blow if Donald Trump is able to defeat these charges in court, would you agree with that? Would that lessen their intensity for going after political dissidents to humiliating defeat in court? I think so, but he's not going to be defeated at trial in the District of Columbia, which is 95 percent anti-Trump. He's not going to be defeated in front of this judge who has a history and a background that obviously reflects an anti-Trump bias. He's not going to be defeated in Fulton County. He might be defeated in Florida.
He will be defeated, I predict, on appeal. You know, it was Mark Levin who called me the legal Nostradamus because I have predicted all these things, not because I'm smarter than the other people, but I predicted, for example, that the Hunter Biden deal would not be accepted because I make my predictions based on 60 years of experience, not on the basis of wishful thinking. CNN's predictions have been wrong on almost every occasion. I was hoping CNN would put on a show in which they showed their, quote, experts making predictions, and then they showed how none of the predictions came true.
I wish they would do that. They won't do that. They won't admit that they're misleading the American public by their false predictions, but they are. And, you know, I predict that these verdicts at trial will go against Trump, many of them, but not on appeal. Courts will not tolerate this kind of abuse of the legal system, hopefully. Now, do you mean the actual D.C. appeals, or do you mean the Supreme Court of the United States, potentially? I think, first, the Court of Appeals, which is a lot fairer than the jurors, will be in this case, but then, ultimately, the Supreme Court, which has to review cases involving a presidential candidate, that's essential. And a former president, yes. I think they have to take the case.
A former president is a future possible president, yeah. They have to take it. Now, would it potentially, would they go through the merits of the case or the procedural, the prosecutorial issues there involved?
Both, but let me give you an example. The special prosecutor, Smith, indicted him under the Ku Klux Klan statute, which talks about hooded and masked men driving formerly enslaved people away from the voting booths. And it says that if two or more people conspire to deny any citizen their constitutional rights, they're guilty of a crime. Well, what if the courts ultimately rule that Smith has denied Trump his constitutional rights by indicting him for these false charges?
Would he be guilty under his own statute? Would he be guilty of lying by leaving out the key words? He tried to describe the speech on January 6th, a speech I disapprove of, but constitutionally protected. But Smith willfully, deliberately, and maliciously left out the words peacefully and patriotically when he purported to describe the speech of January. That's a lie of omission, which under the law can be just as serious as a lie of omission.
I haven't heard anyone make that point. That's why Professor Dershowitz is the best in the game. Check out Get Trump, excellent book, professor, really great. Thank you and you're welcome back anytime. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us your thoughts, as always, freedom at CharlieKirk.com.
Thank you so much for listening and God bless. And walk around the office on eggshells and have my words policed by HR. Words like grandfather, peanut gallery, long time no see, no can do. When I grow up, I want to be obsessed with emotional safety and do workplace sensitivity training all day long. When I grow up, I want to climb the corporate ladder just by following the crowd. I want to be a conformist. I want to weaponize my pronouns.
What are pronouns? It's time to grow up and get back to work. Introducing the number one Woke Free Job Board in America, RedBalloon.Work
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-09-01 00:05:09 / 2023-09-01 00:20:10 / 15
