Why Young Men are Going Right with Sen. Eric Schmitt and Alan Dershowitz

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, can you believe it? Young men are becoming conservative at an amazing rate. Thank you Turning Point USA, tpusa.com, tpusa.com. Get involved and support us.

Then we have Alan Dershowitz on the Trump indictments, and Senator Eric Schmidt on why there is a war on white people in the American military. Email me freedom at charliekirk.com and subscribe to our podcast. Get involved with Turning Point USA at tpusa.com, that is tpusa.com. Start a high school or college chapter today at tpusa.com and support our program at charliekirk.com slash support, charliekirk.com slash support. Listen to the end of this episode for some giveaway opportunities and text this episode to your friends and give us a five-star review.

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 Senator Eric Schmidt from the great state of Missouri. Honored to have him here. He has been leading the charge very effectively against Charles Brown, who is Biden's selection to become the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Very important position. Senator Schmidt has been hammering him because Charles Brown set racial quotas for the Air Force to massively slash the number of white male officers down to just 43%. One of his motives for doing so, no joke, is that he's bitter about getting questioned over his reserved parking spaces and blames racism.

I tweeted this. There is only one quota that should exist in the U.S. military. One hundred percent of officers should be the best candidate available, promoting that ability, not race or chromosomes.

Let's play cut twenty two. Then we'll welcome the senator. General, do we have too many white officers in the Air Force? Senator, what I really look at is the quality of all the officers that we have and we look at the aspect of everyone who's qualified. Well, I would agree with you, but that that is that answer is not consistent with your August 9th memo. You said that you signed on to that there should be a reduction, essentially, of about nine percent of the white officers. That's fifty four hundred, you know, too many white officers. Senator, that is based on the memos on application goals, not the actual makeup of the force. And those those numbers are based on the demographics of the nation, demographics and the nation. That's that's strange.

I think that's right. Senator Schmidt, thank you for your courageous line of questioning. Phyllis, and from your perspective, Charles Brown, should he be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs?

He doesn't have my support. No, and I think that this is what's troubling about all this, Charlie, is that the Biden administration, who is obsessed with racial quotas, in this race essentialism, in this divisive D.E.I., you know, these trainings, these sort of struggle sessions that are rooted in cultural Marxism have no place at all in our military. But the Democrats, they want to politicize everything. I mean, what's further in that clip is there's eighty five hundred well-trained men and women of our armed services who are fired because they didn't get the COVID vaccine. They're not doing anything to recruit those folks either. But getting back to this D.E.I.

stuff, it's just toxic. It's essentially the military's been the greatest meritocracy in the world. People from every socioeconomic background, race, gender, whatever, can achieve great things.

Right. You've got the there's ticker tape parades being held for people who came from, you know, the lowest rung of the economic ladder because they did great things. And there's a reason why they wear uniforms is a reason why they have, you know, seen haircuts is to build cohesion. So this idea that you're going to be separating people by the races or hiring people or not hiring people because of their skin color, it goes backwards. And so he has a memo that I questioned about at that hearing of just last year that essentially sets racial quotas for officers. And the practical result of that, Charlie, is essentially there's fifty four hundred people that if you follow this logic under his point of view, should be fired. You know, and we're dealing with a confidence issue now in the military, we're dealing with recruiting challenges.

I believe we should be reaching, you know, far and wide recruiting everybody who wants to serve. But that's very different. That's that's not D.E.I.

D.E.I. is something very different than that. And I think part of this is educating people about what it is and also that the Department of Defense and the Biden administration has just held in on injecting all this divisive stuff in the military and they shouldn't. Well, and I just see this this contradiction, if I may, Senator, which is many people in D.C. are clamoring for conflict abroad. They say that China might take Taiwan, which I certainly don't think happens, what's going east in Ukraine while simultaneously trying to destroy our own military.

I don't know how those those things could simultaneously exist. I don't want more foreign intervention, but if I did, I would also want the best possible military. Right.

So it's as if we're getting involved in these quagmires abroad while we're making decisions that will obviously make us less prepared to fight our adversaries or whatever war might be looming in private. Do you have do you think there's enough support from senators to block this guy? I mean, we should be able to have a joint chief of staff that doesn't want to displace white officers from their positions. Right.

I can't actually believe we're even having this conversation. Right. Somebody's been nominated that's advocated for racial quotas. And look, he's had a distinguished career.

I'm not taking anything away from him to screw. But but when it comes to leadership, like when you're in the leadership position now where you're sort of setting policy goals, that's what that position would be. You can't have somebody in my view that's advocating for racial quotas, essentially discrimination. That's what it is. And I think we've got to call it out. So you're right.

There's a priority misalignment here. I mean, you know, the people who want to send, you know, over one hundred billion dollars in Ukraine who don't want to have us spend the money to secure our own southern border. Yes. You know, our military has to be focused in a laser like way on protecting the homeland. Right. Lethality in understanding the threat that China poses.

That's kind of how I know I will I sympathize with that. And it's just I find it interesting because there is widespread agreement in Congress to basically increase the likelihood that we might have a kinetic war in Europe while also diminishing our own military. Senator, I am curious, though, in private, in the hallway, when you talk to your Democrat senator colleagues, do they even acknowledge that this is absolutely insane? I mean, I can't imagine that an honest person thinks that this is a good idea for military preparedness to defend the homeland.

Well, I'll tell you, I mean, I'm on the Armed Services Committee. There are no Democrats that even raise this issue. This is just not this isn't something that they care about. They are perfectly willing to go along with this idea of the sort of indoctrination everywhere. I mean, you see in our schools with CRT, you see it in our schools with a lot of this. I mean, so there isn't any institution, I guess, that's immune from this divisive brand of politics that the Democrats want to interject.

And of course, the mainstream media, Charlie, you know, comes after Republicans, Republicans pounce. When we're the ones, well, you know, me, I'll just use now I'm not going to speak for anybody else trying to pull this stuff out. Right. I don't I just want I don't want our military politicized.

I want them to be the best fighting force they can be to protect our country. So, well, no, this shouldn't be, you know, something that it's turned into where all of a sudden it's some sort of divisive issue. But I will tell you, Charlie, I will say one one victory, one victory in the the NDAA that is that came out of the Senate. We did get it and I got an amendment on that stops DEI hirings and Joe Manchin voted for that. So I think if you get people to actually have to vote, yes, you start to see the fallacy of all this stuff and how toxic it really is. So my view is let's have all these amendments voted on, see where people are at, because I think the pressure of actually having to be accountable to the people you represent on these things is important, which is why you can't allow the administrative state, the executive overreach to to to supplant the importance of the Article One branch Congress actually making policy.

Right. We nobody in Congress ever voted for these DEI stuff ever. And if it's such a good idea, we should vote on it.

I would vote. That's not what the Biden administration is doing. Well, I think that's such an important point, which is, OK, John Tester, like you run these stupid advertisements on Montana television relentlessly from now till next November. Of you pretending to pheasant hunt, even though you haven't pulled a hunter's license, you know, a license in the last 10 years. Why don't you go vote on having less white people just for racial quotas?

I think that's so smart. What you're getting at, though, is we have to force their radicalism and expose it with votes, amendments and sunlight. Final thoughts, Senator.

Absolutely. And we've got to get the power back with the people because no one supports this. I mean, there's some people, but people don't want our military politicized. They don't want people, you know, they don't want racially discriminatory policies where if you're white, you can't advance or there's too many white officers. This stuff is toxic.

It's poison. So we're going to keep fighting back and raise the issue. I appreciate you. Well, also really quick preview your free speech legislation. My team tells you you got something cool coming there.

Oh, yeah. So, as you know, I had the Missouri versus Biden case that preceded Twitter files and all these hearings, all this stuff's good because it's bringing to light this vast censorship enterprise. And so we're going to have legislation that not only do big tech companies lose their Section 230 protections if they violate, you know, people's first amendment rights, but you also a private right of action against individual government actors if they do it, making sure they can't collude with, you know, universities like Stanford, University of Washington and hide some of the censorship activity. But we've got to get at it.

We've got to get the private side, the government side and protect people's first amendment rights at all costs. Senator, you're doing a great job. I want to encourage you.

Your line of questioning was bold and precise and very effective. Thank you for that. And keep it up. Thanks so much. Thanks, Charlie.

Take care. I'd like to tell you about a stunning new movie. The Hiding Place takes you on a journey back to World War Two as the boots of the Third Reich echoed through Europe. One family chose to resist in this incredible true story loved by millions. Corey Ten Boom and her family risk everything to hide hundreds of Jewish refugees from Nazi invaders.

And they ultimately face the consequences when they are discovered. It's really, really amazing story. The Hiding Place is a story of faith, hope, love and forgiveness in the face of unthinkable evil. Written for the stage, filmed for the big screen, Broadway World calls The Hiding Place stunning, powerful and deeply moving.

Do not miss the story of a brave woman who impacted generations. This global cinema event opens in theaters only August 3rd. Showtimes are selling up fast. Get your tickets now at The Hiding Place Film Dotcom. That's The Hiding Place Film Dotcom. This is a must see movie.

Get your tickets now at The Hiding Place Film Dotcom. We have some good news for 11 years. Turning Point USA has been working and we've been working. In fact, we started our educational efforts to try and turn, get it, millennials to be less Marxist. They were supposed to be the most progressive generation in history. Now, millennials have moved by nearly 20 or 30 points to be almost a 50-50 generation.

But of course, the people that sit on Twitter and do nothing, they say, Oh, Charlie, you have this big organization. What are you doing at all with Generation Z? The answer is we've been getting to work. We have by far the largest, because it's the only, investment with high school leadership and chapter development in the history of the conservative movement. We have over 60 full time people. That's right, 60 full time people just in our high school department. Well over 75 in our college department. That's 135 just on our high school and college department together.

Full time people. No one has made that investment in the grassroots and the field troops like Turning Point USA. We knew that high schoolers needed to be developed, communicated to through social media, podcasting. And yes, the good old fashioned organizing, chapter development. We started our Turning Point USA high school department a couple of years ago, and it has been growing rapidly.

As we believe that Generation Z, there's no reason why Gen Z has to be nearly as liberal as the elites predicted. So we went to work. And in fact, right now we could put up the picture on screen. We're hiring another 50 full time people this week. We're actually onboarding them. That's right there, new hire training at Turning Point USA, while other groups are sitting around on their hands doing nothing, complaining. Sitting in Washington, D.C., having high priced dinners or whatever they do, taking your money and lying to you. That's the grassroots.

That's 50 full time new people right now at Turning Point USA headquarters, new hire training. That's just for high school and college campuses. And I woke up this morning to a remarkable piece on TheHill.com because you might say, turn off that cell phone, but show me the goods, as Jerry Maguire would say, show me the money. TheHill.com, high school boys are trending conservative. You see, the narrative is that all young people are liberal. High school boys are more conservative than any time since 1975. In fact, high school boys became majority liberal in the year of 2000, 2005, 2008. And now they are a majority conservative. In fact, only 12 percent of high school boys identify as liberal.

And they're probably the metrosexual boys anyway, probably the skinny jean boys. The actual young men that want a future meaning and purpose are not just drifting to the right. They're coming to the conservative movement in huge numbers. Now, the bad news, and you have to be honest about it, is the young women are more liberal than ever, because liberalism is rooted in complaining and young girls love to complain. So obviously it's built for them. Young men want a future. Liberalism is rooted in emotionalism. They manipulate young ladies. By the way, it's not all hope is lost. We have our Young Women's Leadership Summit.

We have 2,700 young women there. Progressivism speaks to the feelings and the emotion to a naive young lady who believes the world is rigged against them. Progressivism speaks to their idea that you're going to need to terminate your child and pro-choice and transgender politics. Men are not believing in that, though. Men know the game is rigged against them, especially young white men.

They say, time out. Racial quotas, affirmative action, abolish whiteness, military standards, diversity, equity, inclusion. By the way, black men, too, young black men are drifting to the right. And you see this, by the way, in the rise of Andrew Tate. Again, Andrew Tate is not someone to be, let's say, elevated on his own personal life.

But what he says is very interesting. Decline of masculinity, taking responsibility for your life. And now the macro trend is showing it. At Turning Point USA, we are doing the work to save America. There's other groups that are doing stuff, too. No one is working hard as Turning Point USA. No one is having it as their daily mission, the drumbeat, to move the dial. It shows that there is this massive hunger and we are not going to give up. This is why the media attacks Turning Point USA so much and Turning Point Action.

This is why they come after us so much. And by the way, women are wired to be more emotional and liberal policies appeal to their emotions. The Women Project is a whole different thing. Men are rational, hopefully so, in their politics. Not that women are necessarily irrational, but honestly, if you believe that men can give birth and you vote for that, go to the left.

Women, oh, why can't we let everyone in? It's the man's job to say no, as Andrew Tate would say. No, we're not going to let in five million people. No, we're not going to abolish fossil fuels.

No, we're not going to castrate kids. We need more masculine energy in our politics. And Generation Z, high school kids at a high watermark, are pushing back against the toxin and the cancer of progressivism. It's beautiful to see. Joe Rogan, Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, you see them increasing and young boys are coming our way.

Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here. The U.S. dollar has lost 85 percent 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 percent. 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 with 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-carat, 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 Professor Alan Dershowitz. Everyone should check out their book, Get Trump. And boy, Professor, I joke around about it every time you come on the show.

What a timely book. You couldn't have timed it better with all these indictments and the entire legal apparatus being thrown at him. Professor, I want to ask you about your reaction to the indictment that came down last week, this superseding indictment.

Well, on its face, it raises some serious issues. It looks like perhaps one of President Trump's employees may have flipped and become a government witness. But when you look closely at the superseding indictment itself, the most troubling aspects of it seem like they're double or triple hearsay that this employee heard that that employee was told that the president may have said that he wanted the videos erased. That would be inadmissible in a trial unless the government claimed there was a broad conspiracy and it would come in under the conspiracy exception. But it's not obvious that the jury will ever hear that kind of hearsay statement, or if they heard it, that they would believe it. I didn't see anything in the indictment that has an eye or ear witness who says, I heard the president say that the tape should be erased. If there were such a witness and if the witness were believed, you know, that does constitute an obstruction of justice. But there's a long way between an indictment, as you know, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich.

They only hear one side of the story. So we have to keep an open mind and see what the evidence actually is and whether it's credible and believable. And so in your experience in dealing with the government, is it common that they'll throw these superseding indictments as more evidence is arising? What is usually, walk us through a superseding indictment.

I'm a layman with this stuff. Why do they usually are presented the way they are? Well, there are a lot of reasons for presenting it. If they get new witnesses, they will supersede. If they get new evidence, they will supersede. Sometimes they will supersede to change the venue, the place where the trial is going to be. That didn't seem to have been the case here.

It's still going to be in Palm Beach, Florida County. It also can sometimes serve to threaten other defendants. After all, they did indict some new person. And they may want to flip him and turn him into a witness. You know, the government can not only make witnesses sing, they can often make them compose.

And that is make up stories or change stories or make the stories even better. So there's a long, long way between saying something in an indictment and proving it up beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Professor Dershowitz's book is Get Trump. Everyone should check it out. It is incredibly timely right now. So it seems, Professor, that either, let's just take Georgia first.

Georgia is imminent, as if Fannie Willis is going to indict Donald Trump. You said something on this program that I thought was brilliant, and I've not heard a single person repeat it, where you make the distinction about Trump saying, get votes. Can you walk our audience through it? So I think this is the best defense for Donald Trump here.

Sure. I think his best defense is the actual recording of the conversation itself. He could have easily said, if you were guilty of something, make up votes.

Concock them. But he didn't say that. He said, fine them. Fine them means they're lost.

They're there. Fine them has a literal meaning. And it is not in any way a crime to tell vote counters to look hard and see if you've lost some votes. We know that in many parts of the country, votes were lost temporarily, and then they were found.

And so I think that call is actually his best defense. I think the other best defense, both to that charge and the January 6 charge, will be the fact that the traditional way, since the Tilden Hayes election and even Thomas Jefferson's election and other elections back in our history, and certainly 1960, was if you want to challenge an election, you put up a slate of alternate electors. A court in Hawaii said that was the appropriate thing to do. So I think they're going to have trouble as a matter of law indicting him on this fake electors scheme, because it's the way to challenge. It's certainly a far better way of challenging an election than having a riot or demonstration or entering into the Capitol.

I think we want to encourage lawyers to bring challenges. I was part of the challenge that was brought in Bush versus Gore. I was the lawyer for the voters in Palm Beach County who were fooled and tricked, we believed, into voting for Bush based on what was called the butterfly ballot. You remember that.

I wrote a whole book about it. And so I challenged an election. That's the only election I've ever challenged. I didn't challenge the 2020 or the 2022 elections. But I did challenge the 2000 election. And we did it lawfully and legally. And that should be encouraged more than street demonstrations. Yeah, so let's focus on that. The Michigan electors were indicted, I believe, to try and build the case against a looming DOJ indictment.

Do you think those are connected? And how would you defend against Donald Trump's pending seditious conspiracy? Because they're going to make the argument, I think, that he had these electors.

He was trying to overthrow the government through false certification of electors. But what you're saying is it's perfectly constitutional. It's within your free speech rights as a candidate to contest election results. Not only that, it should be encouraged. We want to encourage contesting votes and let the courts decide it.

Because many, many millions of Americans, not me, I was not included among them, but many millions of Americans doubted the validity of the 2020 and in Arizona the 2022 elections. And the best way of resolving that is taking it to the courts, taking it to Congress, using the constitutional means to challenge. That shouldn't be criminalized.

And it was never before criminalized. But it's all part of the Get Trump. What's happened is my one criticism of what you said before I got on the air was you equated liberals with woke and progressives. I'm a liberal. And as a liberal, I'm tolerant, open-minded, support free speech, don't support surgery for minors. I'm not part. I hate the progressives.

I hate the wokes. I'm a liberal who has a lot in common with traditional classic conservatives. And liberals are in favor of challenging elections. You can be a liberal without being particularly on the left. I'm not particularly a left-winger.

I'm a libertarian, civil libertarian, liberal. And progressives and wokes are very, very, very different. And it's the progressives and wokes that are trying now to criminalize what are legitimate constitutional means of challenging elections.

Oh, I think that's a great point you made. And you're an increasingly endangered species in American politics, especially someone who is willing to speak and have dialogue. And you believe in the Constitution. So I want to ask about this particular element as well, which, again, you talk about in your book, Get Trump, the threat to civil liberties due process and our constitutional rule of law. Do you think the Department of Justice, using the Proud Boys' convictions as the model to indict Trump, could potentially disqualify him from running in 2024 using the 14th Amendment, where it says insurrection or rebellion? Well, insurrection or rebellion had a very precise meaning back in the 1860s. It meant joining the Confederacy. I've just been reading a history book written by Lincoln's private secretary about the beginnings of the Civil War and the Civil War in general. There's no doubt 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were the peace treaty ending the Civil War. And what the 14th Amendment meant is that if you were Jefferson Davis or Judah Benjamin, you could not run for office unless the House and the Senate allowed you to by a two-thirds vote or whatever it was in the Constitution.

It has nothing to do with what happened on January 6th. And anybody who tries to interpret the words of that constitutional amendment to prohibit Trump from running, even if he were to be convicted, would be stretching the Constitution beyond its intended meaning. Well, I'm afraid that's potentially what they are going to do.

And then finally, there is some speculation, Professor. Now, this might be very radical, but I don't put anything past them with the entire idea of getting Trump. That they might have, at the very most extreme, pretrial detention and deny Donald Trump bail and or with certain, let's just say, stipulations, conditions. You can't travel outside of a certain proximity. What are your thoughts on this, what the DOJ might do here? The 8th Amendment prohibits success of bail, and bail can only be denied if a person is likely to flee the country. And it's hard to imagine Donald Trump getting on his private plane and heading off to where?

Russia, China? You listen to some of those people, you would think that Putin would welcome him with open arms. That's not going to happen.

And everybody knows that's not going to happen. He wants to stay in the United States and run. And he wants to campaign. And I think it would be unconstitutional to limit his campaign, to limit his use of cell phones, to limit. Remember, he's presumed innocent. Under the law, he's just like you and me. And they can't stop us from talking. And they shouldn't be able to stop him from talking. There'll be a trial, a trial of least according to current schedules, will occur before the conventions.

I think it's terrible. I don't think that a man running for president should be indicted by his opponent's administration in the United States unless the evidence meets what I call the Nixon-Clinton standards. The Nixon standard is bipartisan support for his impeachment, which is what occurred. Or the Clinton standard.

Clinton was not prosecuted for what she did with respect to possibly classified material. And you can't have a double standard for a candidate on the Democratic side and a candidate on the Republican side. So I don't think it is proper to ever prosecute a man running for president or a woman running for president against the incumbent unless the evidence is so clear and overwhelming that both parties would support it. And that test has not been met. Well, I mean, this whole thing is unprecedented. He's almost likely going to be the nominee. I mean, is it out of the realm of reality that a judge might say, I'm going to push this trial until after the presidential election?

I mean, is that a possibility, Professor? That should be done. Without a doubt, it should be done. And I suspect the trial will not take place before the election. You know, they say it's going to happen in May. There are all kinds of pretrial motions. There might be motions that are appealable to the Circuit Court of Appeals. So I wouldn't count on the trial actually taking place in May. And we know now that the New York trial, which is a farce, the New York indictment is the worst indictment I've seen in 60 years of practicing law. The New York trial has now been postponed until after the Florida trial.

So we just don't know. But there ought not to be a trial that takes place during the election. That really does constitute, whether it's deliberate or not, election interference. Look, I have a constitutional right to vote against Donald Trump for the third time. I voted against him twice.

I want to vote against him again. And I don't want my constitutional right to vote against him or your constitutional right to vote for him to be in any way interfered with by bureaucrats. And it ruins trust in our system. We have different political choices, most likely, in the 2024 election. But we need to have trust that our systems are not going to be interfered with by our government. Look, the ultimate check and balance in any system is elections, and elections should be free and open. And it's in banana republics that one administration will go after their opponents and not really let them run a full and complete campaign. The American public will only trust the election system if both parties are allowed to run on equal strength and on the merits of their positions. You know, I'd love the 2024 election to turn on the economy and on foreign relations, rather than on who's the worst criminal, you know, the Trump family or the Biden family. That's a terrible thing to have the American people have to choose between. It's so damaging. The book is Get Trump. Everyone buy the book, Get Trump.

It's excellent and incredibly timely. Hey, Charlie Kirk here. If you guys love this program and you want to support this program, if we have impacted or blessed your life in any way, I want to tell you about a new thing that we are starting it up. First of all, if you have supported us at charliekirk.com slash support, nothing to worry about.

You guys are going to be moved on over. If you want to support us even more and say, hey, I want exclusive content. I want to talk to Charlie directly.

We are standing up this amazing infrastructure. Teams have been working so hard at members.charliekirk.com. Not only is it a way to support us directly outside of all of the other channels, but get this, live Q&As with me and the team, articles exclusively written by me that you won't find anywhere else.

Pre-show prep calls and more. Sign up today at members.charliekirk.com. We love bringing our show every day and we can't wait to bring you even more content that is just for you at the Charlie Kirk exclusive. That's members.charliekirk.com. Head to members.charliekirk.com today.

Yes, there's going to be a lot of goodies, a lot of engagement, a lot of fun stuff, but even more than that, if you feel moved and compelled that our show is impacting you and impacting the world, it would mean a lot if you became a member at members.charliekirk.com. So professor, this is, I'm sure you have some strong opinions about this, the damage this does to our systems and almost, I don't know how we heal it, how we remedy it. It just, what bothers me is that the people on the progressive woke left, I will take that distinction, I think you're exactly right, they seem not to care that they're damaging the institutions, that this is now going to be basically an era where you just indict your political opponent just to hold on to political power. Do you think your former friends and colleagues, Harvard Law and all the top law firms, do you think they care about the damage they're doing? Too many of them don't. I mean, Professor Lawrence Tribe, who teaches constitutional law in Harvard and two other professors recently basically have said to their students, don't listen to the Supreme Court, ignore the Supreme Court, circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling on race-based affirmative action, you know better than the justices, we're seeing the rule of law really, in so many ways, destroyed.

And you know, when Larry David came up to me in the Chilmark store and screamed at me and yelled at me and said I was disgusting with the veins bursting on his forehead, it was as if he was talking to Heinrich Himmler and that I had just defended Adolf Hitler. I mean, that's the way some of these people on the extreme woke radical left think of Donald Trump. And they don't care. They don't care what means they use.

They don't care how much they destroy the Constitution as long as they get Trump. And that's why I wrote this book. It was very controversial. It has cost me, as defending Donald Trump cost me, a great deal in terms of friendships, the way my wife has been treated, the way my children, my grandchildren have been treated.

People just have lost all sense of decency when it comes to having different points of view. And the irony is I share many of their points of view on the merits, not the extreme progressive woke points of view, but generally points of view. I'm in favor of gay rights. I'm in favor of reasonable abortion choice, reasonable climate control, reasonable gun control. I am a traditional liberal, but my former friends on the radical left, one of them was walking yesterday on the beach and he saw me coming and he took a sharp right turn, went up to the top of the dunes.

I thought he'd fall off to avoid even seeing me. And that's the way it is today. And the library has canceled me. My synagogue has canceled me. The community center has canceled me.

The book show on Martha's Vineyard, I'm probably the best-selling author on Martha's Vineyard. They canceled me. It's just, they don't want to hear opposing points of view. That's not liberal.

That's, it's called progressive, but it's repressive. Professor, then I have to ask you personally in the last minute and a half we've remaining, why do you keep on talking and fighting? You don't share the politics of Trump. You've lost a lot.

Your friends act as if you have some sort of like COVID infection when they see you on the beach, as you just described. What motivates you then? My love of the Constitution, my love of America, my demand that we have complete free speech and opportunity to express our views and that we comply with the Constitution. I'm too old to change my stripes. You know, I'll be 85 in a month. For my 75th birthday, I had like 200 people coming. Oh, interesting, President Obama was invited and he said he would come. But then when he heard that Geraldo Rivera was invited too, basically his office said, unless you disinvite Geraldo Rivera, I'm not coming. And I'm a loyal guy. And I said to the President of the United States, no, Geraldo Rivera's coming, you can stay away. And the President of the United States stayed away for my 75th birthday because I invited Geraldo Rivera.

I would do that any day of the week. I believe in loyalty. I believe in friendships. I don't agree with Geraldo and everything, but he's my friend.

So of course I invited him to my 75th birthday and I'm inviting him to my 85th birthday. Professor, I wish that there were more liberals in public life that were willing to put an ideal of due process, independent judiciary above politics, because we're heading in a very, very troubling direction. I want to thank you for your courage there and check out the book, Get Trump.

I believe we are going to heal our land when we can put our ideals above our politics. Thank you so much, Professor. I deeply appreciate it. Thank you.

I appreciate your asking me out. Thank you. Thank you. And to the end of the episode here, email me freedom at charliekirk.com.

And whether you think the Republican primary should be ended or not, I'd love your thoughts and you might win a signed copy of the college scam. Thanks so much for listening. God bless. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com. Cable news, noisy, boring, out of touch. That's why Salem News Channel is different. We keep you in the know, streaming 24 seven for free, home to the greatest collection of conservative voices like Dennis Prager, Jay Sekulow, Mike Gallagher, and more. Salem News Channel is unfiltered and unapologetic. Watch anytime on any screen at snc.tv and local now channel 525.