6 Ways Jack Smith’s Newest Indictment is Fatally Flawed with Kane and Will Scharf

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, fan of The Charlie Kirk Show, Citizen Kane, with incredibly sharp commentary, and Will Scharf as well, who's running for Attorney General of Missouri, known Will for a long time, he has my complete support, and I can tell you, his commentary on this legal stuff is first class. If you are confused about what's going on, listen to this episode and text it to your friends, give us a 5-star review. As always, you can email me freedom at charliekirk.com and subscribe to our podcast, and get involved with Turning Point USA at tpusa.com.

That is tpusa.com. Start a high school or college chapter today at 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. Joining us now is Citizen Kane from my favorite website, citizenfreepress.com. Mr. Kane, welcome back to the program. I think I visit your website 20 or 30 times a day. It's what Drudge Report used to be at citizenfreepress.com.

Just super quick, how's the traffic going, Citizen Kane? You know, July and August are typically vacation months, so if you get into the nitty-gritty of it, we're down about 5% from where we were in June. We're doing about 11 million to 12 million page views a day. It hasn't really stopped, so traffic is strong and, you know, interest is high. This isn't a normal August.

I mean, last week was not the normal first week of August, so people are tuning in and they're paying attention. And, you know, visiting, you mentioned visiting 20 times a day. You're not alone. I took a little time off in the past three days.

I golfed a couple of times. And, you know, people were, it caused a few issues with people because the site wasn't updating every, you know, every few minutes. I know. I was getting, come on, it's been two hours. Where's my stack?

Why is the stack not getting updated? And, you know, Citizen Kane is one of the good guys. He's in it for the right reasons. He works his tail off.

I kid you not. I text him at like 2 a.m. and he responds almost immediately. It's incredible. So, Kane, you and I had a conversation back in April or May. It was a late-night conversation and you were so clear. You said, I see it now. It's going to be the summer of indictments. You were way, you had far more clarity on this than almost every one of these talking heads on television or these people that say, oh, Donald Trump will never be indicted. You saw it clearly.

So now it's real. Multiple indictments, more coming, Georgia coming, which you and I were always most worried about. Where do we stand now, Citizen Kane, after a summer, a blitzkrieg of indictments, Donald Trump facing 600 years in federal prison?

Yeah, that's quite an ominous statement about 600 years in federal prison. And I watched your intro, which was fantastic. Your first 20 minutes or so from the show this morning, how you laid it all out. And I wasn't alone. I mean, you were right there with me. And I have to think that these other journalists, I don't know if they just don't take the time to think these things through, but it was obvious that it was coming in Manhattan and what was coming in Georgia. And and we both saw two indictments from potential indictments from Jack Smith. So we were just, you know, thinking ahead, I think. And we saw it coming. Yeah, we saw it coming.

And it's you know, it's not good. I mean, people have been I almost feel like there's nothing more I can say, right? I've been covering everything. You've been saying everything.

All of the talking heads all over Fox News are I've got it on right now are covering it. But no one's really getting into, I think, what are the important issues. And so here's one question I want to ask you. When do you think Jack Smith wants to have the January 6th trial? I have this feeling before you answer.

I have this feeling that he wants to be first. We know March 24th is going to be the Manhattan case. I think Jack Smith is angling for somewhere in December, January for this for this J6 case. What do you think?

Yeah, I think that's smart. I think it's also going to be I mean, Jack Smith has multiple ones, right? He has the documents and then he has January six.

Fannie Willis is a complete deranged lunatic in County. But it depends which case does Jack Smith want. I think I mean, Jack Smith wants to get points on the board before ballots go out in October.

He does not want he wants Donald Trump to be a convicted felon before ballots go out. And this is again, this is something super important. If you look at the length, this is why, you know, some people who watch our program, they say, Charlie, you spend too much time quoting MSNBC.

And I want your thoughts on this, Cain. You spend too much time quoting Morning Joe. I said, you have no idea what is probed on Morning Joe in trial balloons becomes policy and or action six to nine months later.

Absolutely. Can you riff on that? Because I think the unsophisticated things that we watch too much of their television and that we post too much of gas. And trust me, I hear it 20 times a day and it infuriates me because, look, are we you know, are we interested in actually knowing what's coming? And just like you said, these are trial balloons. You have to watch live media. You have to watch MSNBC. I mean, if you watch MSNBC, you saw Andrew Weissman lay out this entire case.

You know, that's part of how we know this stuff has been coming. So, yeah, that's incredibly infuriating. People understand we do not support MSNBC. We do not support CNN. We do not support Yahoo.

But you can learn so much. Yeah. Yeah. We're posting these links so people know what's going on. I want to say really quickly, before you say this, I want to say really quickly about Yahoo, because people give me, you know, Kate, why are you leaking?

Yeah. People need to understand that I'm trying to give I'm number one, I'm trying to find sources that have no pop ups, that have no pay walls, that have no firewalls and all kinds of sources from The Washington Post to Bloomberg to Business Insider, sort of good lefty sources that give you an idea of what Democrats are planning. Those sources are available on Yahoo. And on top of that, Yahoo actually has comments now again after they suspended them for two years. So I want people to know that I'm not being lazy.

They have no idea. Almost every story I find, I have to I do multiple searches to try to find the absolute best source, the source that, you know. Anyway, so it's interesting that you brought that up because it's something I think about all the time, because people are always complaining about why are you posting these mainstream sources? So just so people understand, Charlie and I are are showing you this stuff so you know what's coming.

Yeah. And so this is we could see what's coming ahead of it. And if you know what's coming, then you can plan. So two thoughts I have on this.

Understand that when someone goes on MSNBC like that lunatic historian and he compares half the country and the election of Donald Trump to Pearl Harbor, 9-11, all that, it's not just something he woke up at 5 a.m. and said, I'm going to go on Morning Joe and say this. This is a reflection of conversation that happens at the Aspen ski lift. This is conversation that happens at the restaurants in Jackson Hole, that high society is having at their dinners in downtown Manhattan.

So you get you get little crumbs and little windows and little mirrors, especially when Mika and Joe just start spitting off. This is stuff that has been workshopped. Therefore, Kane, are you and I want to be honest with I want you to be 100% honest. Have you seen the action, the investment that is going to allow us to see where it's going, not throw where the receiver is to use a football analogy because football is, you know, but where the receiver is going. Have you seen the evidence yet, Citizen Kane, that the right has wargamed or whiteboarded what is happening in our country right now to potentially defeat these people in November of 2024? No, that's a really good question. And being honest, we aren't seeing it. Who would we see it from, Charlie? Who would be the RNC and Rona?

Yes. So who's, you know, so who's trying to sort of fill that void? I feel like really, you know, there are some good shows, but I really feel like War Room with Bannon and your show are the only two that every single day are getting into it and getting into, as you said, sort of what's coming. What is the enemy thinking?

How do we anticipate that movement by the enemy and how to be, how do we be prepared for it? So no, we aren't being helped. I mean, I think isn't that the split? Isn't that what the whole sort of faith split in the Republican Party is about, that we have sort of these forward America first thinkers who are proactive, tend to be a little bit younger and aggressive. And then we have the, we have the, you know, the RINO as a part of the party, which is so, you know, which is so apparent in the Senate.

And so and so we sort of have this split. And unfortunately, most of the let's call it the corporate money is on the RINO side. So RNC has access to the huge donors in these and the people that they could, you know, if Ronald McDaniel were really concerned about these things, she should have multiple programs laid out.

For example, what TPUSA has done, I've mentioned it before, giving five million dollars to Scott Pressler for Wisconsin is a beautiful way to start. But that should be done by the RNC. You shouldn't have to be doing that. You shouldn't have to be coming in and filling in where they're making, you know, where they're not working. And what is happening in Wisconsin, what you're doing in Wisconsin, that's just a drop in the bucket.

You talk about the Zucker boxes and the Zucker box and the 400 million. I mean, we're still fighting a huge uphill battle. And the only one who can help us win that battle is the RNC and the corporate money.

I mean, you're right. Sorry to cut you off, Kane. We're up against radio break. I'm looking at FEC.gov, Never Back Down, Inc., which is Ron DeSantis' PAC. They raised one hundred thirty million dollars last quarter.

Kane, a hundred thirty million bucks. If Ron DeSantis said, I'm not running for the presidency 2028, I am going to run. He could almost announce like four years in advance, but I'm going to defeat the Marxist Democrats. He would be in the pantheon of conservative legends. He would look like a team player, ballot chasing infrastructure.

He could be a comfortable governor, raise his kids, have a beautiful life, sell another best, you know, another best selling book. Strong sell is amazing. I got to tell you, the combination of NADH, CoQ10, and collagen is really something. You know, people ask me, they say, Charlie, how do you keep your energy up? How do you just keep on pushing? Look, part of it is diet, nutrition.

But I'll be honest, I take supplements really seriously. Fact check me on this. You can say, oh, Charlie, I'm going to fact check you. Type this into your search engine. Maybe it's Google, maybe not.

N-A-D-H. Just type it in. What does it tell you? It might tell you that it is the secret to living long, anti-aging properties, more energy. All of that is being proven in more and more clinical trials. NADH is a precursor so that your mitochondria can remain healthy and vibrant. The elites, a lot of billionaires, people, a lot of money, they spend a ton of money on NAD.

It's a fact. NAD just might be your secret weapon for more energy. I take NAD every single day.

I could tell you that NADH, compared with CoQ10, the trials show very, very good things. I don't take my word for it, but I mean, honestly, my word should be good for something. But fact check me.

Look at it. And if you do it over 30 days, you'll see an increase in energy. I wake up better than ever before. NAD can help you potentially, again, fact check me on this with depression, anxiety, other issues that you might be dealing with. It is nature's gift to you.

So you might have extra energy and mental clarity. You guys can use promo code Charlie for 20% off. It's strongsell.com slash Charlie. NAD might be nature's secret weapon for you. I love it. I take it every single day. Try songs, try to try it for at least 30 days to see the maximum benefit.

And let me know, has NAD helped your life? Strongsell.com slash Charlie. Check it out.

Strongsell.com slash Charlie. Well, let's face it, right? You and I have discussed Ron DeSantis before. I don't think Ron DeSantis is a rhino. I don't think he's a Jeb Bush wannabe.

I think the Trump influencers and the Trump campaign, to their credit, because, you know, everything's a battle, right? So to their credit, they've been able to paint DeSantis' way and his poll numbers have fallen dramatically. This was not the time for DeSantis to run.

You and I both knew this. We tried to sort of warn the governor, you know, indirectly ahead of time that 2024 wasn't really his time. 2028 would be his time. I say now, Charlie, he's actually in danger.

You brought up a great point. He's, you know, his campaign, every week it gets a little bit worse. His numbers are not, they're not growing, they're shrinking. So he's a little bit, he's a little bit at risk of becoming the next Scott Walker. If you remember what happened in 2016, immediately, you know, and so I think that DeSantis, who has to be one of the three or four best potential candidates for 2028, is risking all of this by staying in the race.

He continues to get destroyed on Twitter, destroyed on social media by the, by the sort of the Trump influencers and it's not a good look for him and it's not working out. You had yesterday's Drudge Report leading with the empty seats, the empty venue in Iowa that he was speaking to and then also DeSantis' largest donor, right, this hotel entrepreneur who gave him 20 million dollars. That guy has announced that he's not going to be giving any more money to DeSantis unless he starts bringing in other donations or moderate his positions.

The article is up, that 20 million donation article is up on CFP if people want to read it. But my point is, so how can he flip the script? And I haven't really thought about it until what you said and that would be the perfect way. He could gracefully bow out. He could prevent himself from becoming an also-ran and, you know, an afterthought.

He could do all of this plus donate this 130 million, not to Trump, but to what what TPUSA and other conservative groups are attempting to do to help win these seven swing states. Because that's, you know, I've been going for two minutes and I want to let you get in, but we know that's where it's all coming down to. This is going to be an incredibly close race. Yes, it will be.

And by the way, Kane, something to explore. And I know that on the stack, you've been one of the few outlets, you've been looking at Cornel West, you've been looking at No Labels. We have no idea the composition of votes. We this is going to be a lot of chaos and confusion. You know, if you remember, the Green Party was not on the ballot in the key states in 2020, largely because of COVID.

It was hard to collect signatures. The Democrats sued unless there's another bioweapon deployed on the American people, which, by the way, don't get too comfortable people. There might be something happening in 2024, color revolution, Floyd-a-palooza, trans Floyd.

I don't know. I'm just saying that in election years, it just so happens that really crazy, wild things tend to happen. But Green Party, Kane, if anyone is telling you, oh, I'm telling you, Trump is going to lose in all this. You cannot even design an algorithm that can predict what four candidates on the ballot in Arizona is going to look like, period. You have No Labels, Sinema running as an independent, Joe Biden, Trump and Cornel West.

Good luck figuring that out, okay? In fact, I think the smart money will be on Trump, but you need to get into the boring stuff. You have to invest in the boring voter reg, the boring precinct by precinct. And by the way, all these articles out there, where is Joe Biden's campaign? You know where all that money is going? The cabal, Soros, Laurene Powell Jobs, Mackenzie Bezos, Reid Hoffman, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, all of the billionaire oligarchs, they're sitting not in smoke-filled rooms, but in vegan-filled coffee tables, right? In Silicon Valley and Napa Valley saying, you know what?

We need to go deploy money in these states. Meanwhile, we're worrying about who's going to finish fourth place in Iowa. Final thoughts, Citizen Kane? Yeah, you know, Charlie, you're tough to follow. You are on top of this stuff.

So many thoughts came up as you were, as you were speaking. It's, look, look, it's not going to be easy, right? We know that there is no, that there is no clear path for Trump.

You're mentioning Cornel West. I've posted stories that are showing that he may take 2 to 3% of the vote from Biden. That would be huge.

That's enough in and of itself. 2 to 3% is enough for Trump to win in certain swing states. They would, if he, if that happened in Michigan, Trump would win. If that happened in Pennsylvania, Trump would win. I think the same thing for Wisconsin.

Outside of it, you mentioned cinema in Arizona. I know that was sort of a tangent from you, but, but yeah, that's just going to be, you know, that's going to be crazy with her running as an independent. There's no way anyone can game out any of this. We're going to see more and more, more and more evidence of what you described in 2020, how Democrats, it wasn't just COVID, as you said, it was lawsuits. It was different things that the DNC did to keep the green party. They're going to do a color revolution. And by the way, the right is so unsophisticated. I asked billionaires, I asked consultants, so, Hey guys, what do you think the color revolution in 24 is going to be? They say, what do you mean? I was like, Oh my gosh, you guys, you don't understand. This is chapter one. Okay. This is scene one in a nine play act of whether it going to be BLM 2.0 or trans Floyd or whatever it is, 2024 is not going to be this like, Oh, everything is beautiful.

Chaos allows tyrants to have control. There's something coming. I'm not sure what it is, but check out citizenfreepress.com to see it happen in real time. Kane. You're excellent. We'll talk to you soon. Hey everybody.

Charlie Kirk here. The U S dollar has lost 85% of its value since the 1970s when the dollar decoupled from gold and the U S government seems bent on continuing the tradition from now until the next election. The government can print as much money as they want.

The last time they did it, inflation went up 9%. This means one thing, the security of your future and your family's future is all in your hands. Make sure you freeze the value of your wealth that you are holding invest in gold, noble gold investments. Gold is the one asset that is proven to withstand recession, inflation, and just about all other economic threats. Noble gold investments is here to help you. If you want to invest in gold, you will also get a 24 karat one fourth of an ounce gold standard coin for free. Just go to noblegoldinvestments.com right now. That's noblegoldinvestments.com. They're the only gold company I trust. If you want to buy gold, they do a great job. Noblegoldinvestments.com. They're patriotic, transparent, ethical, and responsive. I think the world of noble gold investments is where I buy my gold from. You should too.

Noblegoldinvestments.com. Joining us now is someone I've known for quite some time. He's just been terrific. He's been a total blessing to the conservative movement with his clear commentary. And honestly, his very, very talented rebuttals, effective rebuttals, I should say, of the regime. Will Scharf, who is running for attorney general of Missouri, and I sure hope he's successful.

I'm going to help him any way I can. Will, let's go through this piece. Six ways that Jack Smith's Trump indictment is politically shady. Let's go through all six.

And I have questions about all of them. So we'll proceed. Will, walk us through the piece. Sure.

So first of all, Charlie, as always, thanks for having me on. This new indictment against President Trump in Washington, D.C. is based on flawed legal premises, as numerous other commentators have already said that the timing of it is deeply politically suspect. My point, though, is that when you actually look at the indictment, when you look at the charges, when you look at the facts that Jack Smith is apparently relying on to press this indictment, this is a case that's built on a on a foundation of sand. This is a case that, as we've seen with Jack Smith time and time again, he's relying on wildly overbroad interpretations of federal statutes to attempt to shoehorn political speech and other non culpable conduct into a criminal prosecution.

That's wrong. That's contrary to our traditions of the rule of law, fair and unbiased prosecution in this country. And that's really what got me what got me speaking out against what's going on here.

Yes. So let's start with the first one, which, again, I'm a layman, but I also wasn't born yesterday. I've seen a fair amount of federal indictments. And I have I read a lot more than I used to, Will, because a lot of people in the conservative orbit keep on getting indicted. So you just by result of my profession, you just keep on reading indictments. The first one in your article, the Federalist, it's a terrific piece I want to point people to is this idea of almost thought crimes. And, you know, we have a show we do on Rumble where we joke around that thought crimes are coming next, that you're not even allowed to think the wrong thing. But so much of this indictment is centered on Trump's alleged state of mind, that somehow what he was thinking, that now what happens in your brain is somehow you're able to then put people in jail for having the wrong thoughts. Is that an unfair categorization, Will Scharf? No, I think it's pretty close to the reality, Charlie. And we're truly living in scary times.

I'll put it as simply as I can. If President Trump thought that the election had been illegally stolen, if he thought that the allegations he was making about the election were true, I believe that's an absolute defense or close to an absolute defense against all four charges that have been brought here. So what we have here is Jack Smith and it's paragraph two of the indictment. His view is that the election wasn't stolen. He's attempting to prosecute President Trump for believing the opposite. Now that's not grounds for criminal prosecution. You can't just say that because you disagree with the guy that he should go to prison. That's not the way things work in America. But if you look at the indictment, if you look at what they're required to prove in the indictment, it's clear to me, it's clear to other legal commentators who have weighed in.

If President Trump was under the belief that this election had been stolen and the actions he was taken were necessary, required, proper and legally valid, then there is no case here. Yeah. And it's just it's protected speech. And also you're allowed to petition your government, right? Not only that, it's explicitly put in the First Amendment.

There's not some it's not an abstraction. You're allowed to question state legislatures, question election results. We have a 12 minute. We're not going to play it. Obviously, we have a 12 minute clip that we put on social media of Democrats questioning election results, and honestly, you should be allowed to question election results.

Nothing should be off limits. And I hate to put it this way, but this is almost religious, theocratic type behavior by the regime where the election is almost like the state run religion where you can't think something. Am I off base by even getting there? Well, I think I think we're onto something.

No, Charlie, you're not wrong at all. And it's not just Democrats in recent years. I mean, every election this century that's been won by Republicans, Democrats have attempted to challenge electors. Democrats have attempted to challenge the electoral vote.

I mean, that's historical record. But I mean, challenging the results of elections goes back to really the founding era. You go to the 1824 election where Andrew Jackson believed with at least some validity that he'd been he'd been robbed by a corrupt bargain between Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams.

Rutherford B. Hayes in the in the Reconstruction era, they called him Rutherford for years because of alleged irregularities in the electoral count that year. I mean, this is something that's gone on time and time again in American history. And Jack Smith is trying to turn what's really, you know, as you said, thought crime. President Trump disagreeing with the way that election had been conducted into a criminal conspiracy. And that's just not how the law works.

And you're allowed to push back against your government. You're allowed to believe silly things and just think of other thought crimes that we've lived through, Will, because this is nothing new. It was a thought crime to say that the virus came from a laboratory, not from some Himalayan bat. It was a thought crime, literally, where I got banned on social media to say that the Hunter Biden laptop was legitimate. We had to believe for an election season that it was Russian disinformation. So the regime has been conditioning us through wrongthink, criminal prosecution, wrongthink, social media censorship.

And I lived through it on a, again, a far less consequential landscape on the college campus stuff, Will. When I go to college campuses, which is something I know that you care a lot about, Free Speech Warrior and why you're running for Missouri attorney general, these, you know, these campuses, if you disagree with the orthodoxy of the high priest of the university, you shouldn't be allowed to come on college campus. So this entire regime is built around smaller different patterns.

And now this is the big one. If they're successful, Will Scharf, what will this mean for the future of the First Amendment? What sort of precedent would this set? Yeah, the left wingers who, you know, run the deep state, run Washington, D.C. and their allies in the mainstream media want us all to sit down and shut up. That's as simple as it is. They think they own this country. They think they own our government.

They think they own every aspect of our lives. And any dissent will not be tolerated. Now, just coming back to the legal point here, if President Trump believed the theories that he and his team were pushing out there, if he believed that they were meritorious, if he believed that there had been fraud along the lines of what he suggested, and there is evidence that there was a ton of fraud that was not investigated, that was that was not fully brought to light. If he believed those things, I believe that's an absolute defense to certainly some of, if not all four charges brought in this most recent indictment. I mean, they're alleging a criminal conspiracy, criminal conspiracies.

I talk about this in my article under some of the charges that have been brought. They need to prove specific intent. They need to prove that President Trump's intent was depriving voters of their right to vote.

Now, if President Trump's intent was validating what he believed was accurate theories of election fraud, then that's an absolute defense and he cannot be convicted under the charges that form this indictment. Now, that's just an outrageous thing to have happen here. They're attempting to criminalize political dissent. They're attempting to criminalize election challenges in advance of the 2024 election. We're at the very cutting edge here of a very dangerous movement, a very dangerous moment in American history.

Yeah. And I want to also emphasize the prosecution is going to have to their whole case. Again, there is not a witness that I could imagine would be telling the truth or that Donald Trump would be like, I really know there was no fraud. Having spent private time extensively with President Trump, he 100 percent believes that there is fraud in the 2020 election.

To this day, it's not some sort of schtick, it's not some sort of theatrical play. He believes at his core that the election was stolen from him. Now, they're saying, you're wrong, you're not allowed to believe that. Guess what? That's not criminal.

That's the point. They have to have some witness say Trump thought it was a lie and he was only doing it to raise money or stay in power. There is zero evidence that I could testify to that extent, Will Scharf, spending private time with him. He 100 percent believes this election was stolen from him.

That's a pretty good defense then. And it's not just President Trump. Three of the four counts are conspiracy charges. So they need to prove that the people that President Trump was allegedly conspiring with also believe that the theories they were pushing were false, whether that's John Eastman or Sidney Powell or any of the other folks implicated by this indictment. The proof that they need to offer here is so extravagant, is so extreme. This indictment should have never been brought. And the fact that they're trying to ram it through in a D.C. courtroom in front of, you know, basically a handpicked liberal judge in front of presumably a handpicked far left jury tells you everything you need to know about this case.

They are terrified of the idea that this case could end up in West Virginia or in a court where President Trump could get a fair shake. Who would decide a venue change? What's the precedent for that? Would it be the judge itself?

What are the technical details there? So it's a heavy lift because a lot of the actions that they're talking about occurred in Washington, D.C. and a lot of the witnesses are going to be in Washington, D.C. That'll be a motion that will be filed in the district court here. But ultimately, this case is going to end up on appeal, probably certainly in front of the D.C. circuit, probably in front of the Supreme Court. And if the judge just decides to steamroll over legitimate legal challenges, both to the case itself and to the way that it's conducted, she's going to have to answer to higher courts there.

And that's where I think this case is going. What do you anticipate then from this judge when it comes to a gag order, typically? And then let's say there is a gag order and Trump ignores it or defies it.

What next then? Yeah, so normally in a case like this, what you would see is that the prosecution would file a proposed protective order. President Trump's lawyers would have an opportunity to respond to it, you know, in their own time.

And, you know, you'd see this proceed along a normal pathway. What happened here, Jack Smith's team filed this thing on a Friday. President Trump's team asked for time to respond. The judge then almost summarily denied that, said that they had, you know, until basically close a business on Friday to get their answer on file.

And she's going to make her decision at 5 p.m. Eastern today. It's just it's an incredibly short time frame to litigate the very real legal issues around the validity of this order. The scary thing to me is that if this is going to be her approach to sitting in judgment over what may be one of the most consequential cases in American history, it portends very ill for the state of democracy, the state of rule of law in this country. It's really scary that a presidential candidate, a former president could basically be told by a judge, sit down and shut up at the height of a presidential election, that some polls show that he's winning decisively.

It's it's crazy to me that this is happening today in an American courtroom. And so but if Donald Trump were to, let's say, ignore a let's just say, very sternly written gag order, could the judge then have him arrested? I mean, federal judges have potential arrest authority, right? Yeah, that would open him up to potential contempt charges.

It would open up a lot of let's say it would open up a Pandora's box of bad legal outcomes. But I think that's the plan here, that they brought this indictment. President Trump has called it election interference.

I think there's a lot of truth to that. They brought this indictment at a fraught time, at a dangerous time, at a time when the election season is kicking off. And now they're telling President Trump that he can't even talk about what they're doing to him. He can't even talk about this case that's been brought against him, that he can't even hold in his hands some of the discovery documents that they're going to be turning over to him. It's they're depriving him of, I believe, a right to make his right to exercise the First Amendment to speak politically about political issues. And they're crippling his legal defense.

It's not fair. Americans of all stripes should be outraged by what's going on. And hopefully it'll hopefully this will be litigated out in a positive way. But so far, things look bad.

Yeah. I mean, they're trying to imprison a candidate for president. I just hope people understand that it's not there is no precedent for this. There is a fear that Donald Trump and his movement is such a threat at the ballot box that they have to try to prevent that from ever happening.

Justin Amash, who I think has totally lost his mind the last couple of years, has actually had a really important tweet. He's I'm going to just read parts of it. I may not like Trump, but I love our Constitution, so I feel compelled to speak out. The latest indictment, which I encourage you all to read, attempts to criminalize Trump's routine misstatements of fact. But this is precisely the sort of wrong that must be addressed politically under our constitutional Constitution, not criminally. He says, look, politicians are constantly misguided and just plain mistaken about a lot of things, but does not mean they should be put in jail for it. He says in America, we do not imprison them. We vote them out.

Final thoughts, Will Scharf. Remember, Jack Smith is not an independent counsel. He's a special counsel, which means he's answerable to Attorney General Merrick Garland and ultimately answerable to Joe Biden. Joe Biden said earlier this year that he wanted Jack Smith to prosecute President Trump over January 6th.

What do we have? Jack Smith prosecuting President Trump over January 6th. This is a sitting president prosecuting his primary political opponent. Very sad day for America. It's sad. And I'll be honest, most conservatives have no idea really how to react to this. It's intentionally aggressive because they are super worried that they cannot replicate the irregularities that happened in 2020, as Molly Ball wrote in Time magazine. Do you have a thought?

Thirty seconds, Will Scharf. Yeah. Look, when you look at what happened in Michigan, what happened in Pennsylvania, when you look at the Zuckerberg issue, yes, the 2020 election was, I believe, the most wildly irregular election in American history. We can't let that happen again in 2024. And this whole indictment, in my view, is an effort at forcing us all to shut up about that, right? Forcing us all to sit down and just accept it. I for one, I'm not going to do that.

Me neither. This is an attack on the founding fathers. It's an attack on Abraham Lincoln. It's an attack on our traditions, our customs, everything that we've overcome. Under a decent society, separation of powers, consent to the governed.

It's all under attack by a Maoist illegitimate regime that hates you and your values. Will Scharf, doing a great job running for Missouri. Attorney General will have you on again, excellent. 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. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com. When I grow up, I want to work for a woke company, like super woke. When I grow up, when I grow up, I want to be hired based on what I look like rather than my skills.

I want to be judged by my political beliefs. I want to get promoted based on my chromosomes. When I grow up, I want to be offended by my coworkers 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.