The First SCOTUS Battle of 2024

Hey everybody. The Supreme Court hears oral arguments regarding Trump's ballot access. We take Trump's press conference.

Blake helps us unpack it all. Email us as always. 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.

Email us as always. Freedom at charliekirk.com. Buckle up everybody. Here we go. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk is 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. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com. It's where I buy all of my gold.

Go to noblegoldinvestments.com. Currently, there are Supreme Court arguments happening around Donald Trump's ballot. Access involves the state of Colorado. Jason Murray is arguing on behalf of Colorado voters, just a small amount of voters that are petitioning up to the Supreme Court saying that Donald Trump should not be allowed to be on the ballot. This is not going well for the Democrats at all.

This is not going well for the radical activists that want to kick Donald Trump off the ballot. I want to just play a little bit of a taste here. This is, of all people, Katanji Brown Jackson, who is tilting, saying that I don't think this is going to go well. In cut 98, you have Justice Kagan, and in cut 89, we have Katanji Brown Jackson. Let's actually start with Justice Kagan, who is beginning to just rip their heart out of their argument. Get down to the essence of it.

Play cut 98. There has to be some process for determining those questions. And then the question becomes, does anything in the 14th Amendment say that only Congress can create that process?

And Section 5 very clearly is not an exclusive provision. It says Congress shall have power. But maybe put most boldly, I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States. In other words, you know, this question of whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection to be president. This is getting down to the essence of are they able to kick Donald Trump off the ballot coming into November?

This could end this entire discussion once and for all. Looks like the Supreme Court is angling towards what is probably the easiest ruling for them to make. That ruling would be the 14th Amendment that simply doesn't just give states the power to disqualify presidential camp candidates absent a federal law saying so. Again, even Elena Kagan is saying and she's super suspicious of the Colorado's argument. During all her arguments, she asked the Colorado lawyer, why should one state get to decide who is president?

Kagan called this extraordinary for one state to simply execute a federal constitution provision in this manner. Now, the left is getting increasingly depressed and desperate. Mark Joseph Stern, the legal writer for Far Left Slate, tweeted, quote, In my view, this argument is as good as over. A majority will hold that individual states can't enforce Section three against the president and will hold that individual states can't enforce Section three against the president, at least without congressional approval. In other words, Trump wins and he gets to be on the ballot. That's looks like looks like where it's heading.

They literally might even lose Katanji Brown Jackson. An oral argument. She appeared to be open the idea that Trump can't be disqualified because the president is not an officer of the United States. Another one of the arguments Trump has advanced. Let's go to a piece of tape here. This is Katanji Brown Jackson.

Play cut eighty nine. We never accepted or conceded in our opening brief that this was an insurrection. What we said in our opening brief was President Trump did not engage in any act that can plausibly be characterized. So why would not be an answer? What is your argument that it's not? Your reply brief says that it wasn't because I think you say it did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow the government.

So that's one of many reasons. But for an insurrection, there needs to be an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence. And this point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection. We didn't concede that it's an effort to overthrow the government either.

Justice Jackson. None of these criteria were met. This was a riot. It was not an insurrection. The events were shameful, criminal, violent, all those things, but did not qualify as insurrection as that term is used in Section three. Now, understand this.

Now, this was KBG on insurrection, but she pivots and we're going to be playing more and more tape here. Even the left wingers on the court are not open or sympathetic to these arguments. This is a completely made up argument. And I understand they're trying to say that this is an insurrection. This person arguing Jason Murray in front of the Supreme Court, arguing on behalf of Colorado voters, is saying, well, it was an insurrection in the open. Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked the most important question. Who has been charged from insurrection? Who has been charged? Now, they want Trump charged insurrection, but even being charged is being different than being convicted of insurrection.

Understand this. This is trending towards potentially a 72 or 81 ruling, a potential unanimous ruling. And if that happens, the left gets completely steamrolled on this one. Once again, they'll have made Trump stronger from their frenzy to hurt him. Now, remember, John Roberts will push for unanimous ruling, but I think the worst we can expect here is seven to two. The trend on this is that even honest liberals are a little bit cautious. They're a little bit worried that obliterating a former president from ballot access could potentially be a rubicon that they do not want to cross. And they cannot answer the question. And in fact, in dialogues, Brett Kavanaugh and Alito and Gorsuch press repeatedly, has Donald Trump been charged with insurrection? And Jason Murray says, well, you just kind of know it.

You just kind of see it and you know that it's happening. Let's play cut one to one of Kagan asking, what is the state doing deciding what other citizens get to vote for President play cut one to one? I guess, you know, it did come up in the First Amendment, but there's a broader principle there and it's a broader principle about who has power over certain things in our federal system. And, you know, within our federal system, states have great power over many different areas, but that there's some broader principle about that. There are certain national questions that state where states are not the repository of authority.

And I took a lot. First Amendment, not First Amendment. A lot of Anderson's reasoning is really about that. Like, what's a state doing deciding who gets to who other citizens get to vote for for president? The this would be a big statement if the Supreme Court decided nine nothing, it would be a huge win.

Now, whether or not that's going to happen, we will see. But it's almost a certainty that Donald Trump will be allowed on the ballot. Here's more of Katanji Brown Jackson play cut one or two restrict presidential candidates wouldn't have wouldn't have existed.

They wouldn't have been raised one way or another. But I'm not making a distinction between ballot access and anything else understood. But the more the more broad point I want to make is that what is very clear from the history is, is that the framers were concerned about charismatic rebels who might rise through the ranks up to and including the presidency of the United States. But then why didn't they put the word president in the very enumerated list in Section three?

The thing that really is troubling to me is I totally understand your argument, but they were listing people that were barred and president is not there. If I'm a left winger, I'm not happy. They thought that they could get Donald Trump through all the indictments, through all the lawfare, through ballot access at every single corner, every single turn. You are losing in the courts. You are losing in public opinion. They are becoming more and more desperate.

Donald Trump will be doing a press conference soon, will be cutting to that. And hey, here's a little bit of a piece of advice for Democrats. Why don't you guys just try to beat Donald Trump at the ballot box? Why do you have to try to go to these extreme because you're afraid that you can't defeat him at the ballot box? That's why you're terrified that there's actually a fair and free election that you'll lose. This is becoming just a legal bloodbath. Justice Gorsuch spends two minutes just going after the Colorado lawyer.

The arguments are so faulty, they are so flimsy, they are so fragile that this very well could collapse in real time. Hey everybody, Charlie Kirk here. If you're looking for a reliable and clear way to have voice and text communication to any number from anywhere in the world, you need a satellite phone and no one does it better than the satellite phone store. Just go to sat123.com.

Check out sat123.com. There is no tracking, no one can listen in on your phone calls, and the most secure way to communicate is from satellite phone to satellite phone. Even the U.S. military uses satellite phones, and you'll never get an advertisement from any other company because everything you do with a satellite phone will be 100% private. In America this year, only 5% of the island in Maui burned, but 95% of the island lost its power and cell service. Even the 911 emergency service was down because they had no access to satellite communication backup. Be ready, prepare your family with power and communication. Go to sat123.com, get a free sat phone for a free 15-month agreement, a $1,200 value, safety and security are just a click away.

Just go to sat123.com for affordable individual family plans or call 855-980-5830. It's amazing, this should not be about Trump. This is about supporting the integrity of the United States Constitution. Even if you hate somebody, they should be able to run for the presidency. All these laws were written in a post-Civil War context to try to prevent individuals that literally were at war with the United States from potentially serving in the government.

These are very antiquated laws and there is a process. Did Congress remove and successfully impeach Donald Trump on these claims? No, he was acquitted actually.

The U.S. Senate acquitted him. They didn't have enough votes for that. This is about the trust of the entire system as we know it, but they don't really care much about that.

Instead, it's about doing everything conceivable, everything in your power to try to get Donald Trump. We don't want the chaos that would ensue. We don't want this eye-for-eye type anarchy. We would rather just have the ballot box determine this. But think about how desperate one must be to go all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, first have the Colorado Supreme Court.

And that's really one of the main focuses here. Who's going to hold the Colorado Supreme Court? Those people should be disbarred.

They should be kicked out of the legal profession. The fundamental question comes down to, are we going to honor the will of the people? Who is the sovereign? Is the will of the people sovereign? This is the bottom line. It needs to be the bottom line throughout. And as we progress deeper and deeper into this unprecedented legal argument, we have drifted so far away from the constitutional intent. In fact, you have people on TV in the cold open.

We had one of them, one of those people on MSNBC. Yeah, this one cut 95 that if you have too many options, it's not democracy. So basically, democracy is one party rule. Remember, every time they say democracy, replace it with the word oligarchy.

Play cut 95. Now, more than ever, the idea of a third party is a threat to our democracy. Third parties do not work.

They're spoilers. So if you want Donald Trump to win the election, then go ahead, throw your vote away and vote third party. And if you don't and you want to maintain our democracy and work within our system to reform it, maybe down the line, there could be an opportunity to have ballot access or a third party or whatever.

That's fine. But right now, the threat to our democracy is too great to be messing around with third party candidacies. The threat to our democracy is too great to allow too many options.

Remember, just replace the word oligarchy and it solves your question. What are they actually arguing for? What are they fighting for? You see, the system of checks and balances that we have in this country of consent to the governed, of separation of powers, they're going after all of it. And it starts with the will of the people who are the sovereign in this country.

Who's in charge? Who is actually the sovereign? And they want the sovereign to be an unelected group of people that are able to call shots on who you get to vote for. They want to be able to say that you don't have a constitutional right to be able to speak. The claim is that the president isn't explicitly listed in the 14th Amendment and other contexts throughout the Constitution. When officers of the United States are mentioned, the president is the one who chooses overseas them. So the argument goes, the 14th Amendment applies to literally every federal job except the president.

This is the argument. That is unfolding in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. How many times do we have to live under this tyranny of nameless and faceless experts?

And it does go to a very disturbing trend. Again, the people that are yammering about democracy, yammering about the threat to democracy. They don't actually want you to be able to participate in a fair and free election. The fact that you have a ballot terrifies them. The fact that you will be able to vote, horrifies them. Senator Roger Marshall is out speaking about this.

We're going to throw that up in a second. And KBG KBG, for example, who is Katanji Brown Jackson, obviously agrees that Trump committed insurrection. But she is signaling and seems to believe that since the president isn't listed, that it doesn't matter. So they're finding all sorts of different nitpicky essences here. But I think it's important that we get the facts right.

Donald Trump did not commit insurrection. Hey, everybody, I know interest rates are not what they were a couple of years ago, but I want to give you my perspective. Did you know in 1971 the interest rate for a mortgage was seven point three three percent? If you waited for the interest rate to go down, you would not have purchased a home until 1993. Renting for twenty two years while you waited.

In the meantime, the value of real estate quadrupled. Don't wait to buy real estate. Marry the house, not the rate. You could always refinance everybody. Take advantage of the slower market now and you can again refinance when rates go down.

Once rates start dropping, the frenzy will start all over again. My friends, Andrew Del Rey and Todd Avakian are amazing. And they recently helped me with the purchase and they could help you, too. They've been amazing to work with. I can't say enough good things about Andrew Del Rey and Todd Avakian.

Triple eight, triple eight, eleven seventy two. Or go to Andrew and Todd dot com. That's Andrew and Todd dot com. Look, if you are Gen Z or millennial, leave a little bit of money put aside. It might be the best opportunity to go to Andrew and Todd dot com and buy a home. Get in the market once you're in the buyer's game. You must never leave the buyer game. And again, I encourage you guys to check it out right now. Interest rates, they're signaling that they're going to go down. But don't wait.

The price of real estate very well might continue to go up. Go to Andrew and Todd dot com. Andrew and Todd dot com. OK, Donald Trump is up. Let's cut this. Let's let's play it up here and we'll see what he has to say.

Which cabin are we talking about? That's the kind of that's the kind of justice we have when they say that to try and build up the case. That was a shame. But that gave up so much when they said that. That gave up so much that Mar-a-Lago is worth 18 million dollars.

They had it appraised for, as you know, 50 to 100 times that amount. We have a judge and that's what he said. And he's supposed to be ruling on me. But who knows? Maybe he'll be fair. I doubt it. Maybe he'll be fair.

So I want to thank everybody. And by the way, we proved that case 100 percent, five times over. That case is 100 percent proven five times over. We've never seen anything like it. He just wouldn't dismiss it no matter what. Shouldn't be there.

It should have been in the commercial division. Anyway, it's an honor to have you. I look forward to having you again. And I'll probably see you out in Nevada.

Thank you very much. The Supreme Court has said to be broadly skeptical in early reporting about the effort to try and kick you off the ballot. I want to speak to the argument, legal and otherwise, that the detractors have made leading up to today.

And it's an argument that was given voice by Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, not long ago. All right. I got this. I got this. No question. Yeah, I got the job. Yes.

And morally responsible. He doesn't say that anymore. So let me just tell you that I heard and I watched. And the one thing I'll say is they kept saying about what I said right after. It's like, well, it's like this is an interaction. This is an interaction. If it was an interaction. So unnecessary, so sad, so horrible. But there were no guns.

They would know anything. But if you take a look at my words right after you take a look at my speech from the Rose Garden, which was very shortly after, or you take a look at my I'm only on truth now, but at that time we were tweeting and I was on Twitter. If you take a look at those five or six tweets, you'll see very beautiful, very heartwarming statements. Go home.

Like a mob boss. Take a look at any of them. Take a look at it. We put together a tape of vicious, violent statements made by Democrats.

Nobody brings that up. Take a look at vaccine waters and the vicious statements that you made. I didn't do that. I said peacefully and patriotically. The speech was called peacefully and patriotically.

It's peace, peacefully and patriotically. He said, I said, they said it was the exact opposite. So I think you should take a look at the statements that I made before and after and you'll see a whole a whole different dialogue. Mr. President, you just mentioned Chinese president Xi. You said that you were going to impose 60 percent tariffs to get back in office.

Can you explain your rationale? They want to bring business back to the U.S. They're still in our business.

They're taking our business at levels that nobody's ever seen before. By doing that, we bring business back, manufacturing back to the United States, which I was doing. I took in hundreds of billions of dollars from China.

No president had ever taken in 10 cents, not 10 cents. I took in hundreds of billions of dollars and jobs were coming back. I was saving steel companies.

Now they are blowing it. When I see U.S. steel being bought by Japan, what a sad thing that is to me. What a sad thing that is. So we want to bring jobs back.

Very simple. Mr. President, you are dominating the polls. Why is Nikki Haley still in the race? Do you still have confidence in Speaker Johnson after the failed Mayorkas impeachment effort? I do have confidence. I very much do.

I think he's very he's a very good man and I have great confidence. You're dominating the polls. Why is neocon Nikki Haley still in the race when you're dominating in the polls? Oh, I love that question.

Thank you very much. You just said it. I don't know why she continues, but let her continue. We have a big one coming up, as you know, in South Carolina. And the polls are indicating that we're we're through the roof on that one. We're leading by, I guess, 35 percent, 35 points. So I don't know. I think she hurts herself, but I think she hurts the party and in a way hurts the country.

But it seems to be dying. She did poorly in Iowa. She did very poorly in Iowa, actually. She came in third place, Rhonda Santas, Peter, although you wouldn't know that if you listen to the speech. She did poorly in New Hampshire. She did poorly no matter where she went. I don't know how the results aren't in yet from the Virgin Islands, but I know she's playing it very hard. And in Nevada, she lost to no name.

She had a no name and she lost by, I guess, 40 points. So I don't know why she continues, but she's a you know, I don't really care if she continues. It's it's I think it's bad for the party.

I think it's actually bad for her. Thank you. Well, I can say presidential immunity, which we'll be talking about, because that would be up. It's very, very important for a president that the president doesn't have immunity. He really doesn't have a presidency.

He can be he can be old, do things that he would never do. He could do really bad things for our country. Presidential immunity is imperative. It's going to be very, very important. I'd rather talk about that next week. But there is nothing more important to a presidency than immunity because they have to be free to make decisions without saying, oh, if I do this or if I do that, as soon as I get out of office, we're going to be indicted. We're going to have trouble. And the other party will do that.

I think we've seen that they've done that. There's some very bad people and you have an opposition party and they will do things that are very bad. If you don't have immunity, you can be black. You can be as a president. They'll say, if you don't do this, this and this, we're going to indict you as soon as you leave office. You cannot allow a president to be out there without immunity.

They don't have immunity. You don't have a presidency. You lose all.

Excuse me. You lose all. You lose all form of free thought and good thought. And you probably weaken the presidency to a point that it was never supposed to be weakened. It would be a very bad thing for our country.

We'll be talking about immunity in the coming weeks. Tony, how confident are you that you should be heard by the Supreme Court? And how was your time frame for your decision? Well, I'm a believer in our country and I'm a believer in the Supreme Court. I listened today and I thought our arguments were very, very strong. An argument that is very important is the fact that you're leading in every race, you're leading in every state. You're leading in the country against both Republican and Democrat and Biden. You're leading in the country by a lot. And can you take the person that's leading everywhere and say, hey, we're not going to let you run?

You know, I think that's pretty tough to do, but I'm leaving it up to the Supreme Court. Thank you all very much. All right.

We want to make sure we took that live. Joining us now is Blake. Blake, you're kind of a legal mind, unofficially.

I just know a lot of lawyers. So just kind of, you know, recap what happened here. This was a big L for the left wingers. Well, ruling's not in yet.

Never count your chickens before they hatch. But certainly, major liberal court watchers, people watching this, do not seem overjoyed with what they got today. We mentioned Mark Joseph Stern, legal writer at Slate. He's watching the line of questionings. And when Kagan asks Colorado's representative, well, wait, why is it OK for one state to decide basically who becomes president, because one swing state could essentially say, well, this candidate's off the ballot, therefore they're not going to be able to win.

And when she's asking that question, there's not really a good answer to that. And if that's the sort of question that the liberal members of the Supreme Court are asking, then it's not looking good for the idea of, well, we can just delete Trump from the ballot on our own and make this all go away. Will this then end all the legal challenges for ballot access for Trump? Will this basically be, will this settle it? This would at least end any push to disqualify him as an insurrectionist. I can't, they're always getting more creative.

Particular vector, particular vector. Importantly, this doesn't handle anything related to Jack Smith charging Trump with a crime. So what you could get is if they push that fast enough and got him convicted of something, we could revisit this with, oh, well, now he's been convicted of something.

Can they kick him off? Yeah, but we've seen the timeline on that is getting pushed. Exactly.

They might just not finish that in time. Yes. So the I want to play a piece of tape here. This is by the way, Clarence Thomas spoke, which is very rare for him. He doesn't always speak in oral arguments. This is cut 107. This is a one minute clip.

And I want your reaction, Blake. This is Alito basically just schooling Jason Murray. I think Alito is the most underrated member of the court.

Play cut 107. What we would do if we were if different states had adjudicated the question of whether former President Trump is an insurrectionist using a different record, different rulings on the admissibility of evidence, perhaps different standards of proof, then what would we do? Ultimately, this court would first of all, if there were deficiencies in the record, the court could either refuse to hear the case or it could decide on the basis of deficiencies of the record. Well, would we have to decide what is the appropriate rule of evidence that should be applied in this in this case? Would we have to decide what is the appropriate standard of proof? Would we give any deference to these findings by state court judges, some of whom may be elected? Would we have to have our own trial?

No, Your Honor. This court takes the evidentiary record as it as it's given. And here we have an evidentiary record that all the parties agree is sufficient for a decision in this case.

And then, as I discussed earlier, there's a possibility of a Bose Corp independent review of the facts. But ultimately, what we have here is an insurrection that was incited in plain sight. You're really not answering my question.

It's not helpful if you don't do that. That's not a good dialogue. It just really stands out how Supreme Court justices are really the only big thing in the United States where you just have to be incredibly smart to get it. And, you know, we love a lot of members of Congress, but I don't know that there's any members of Congress who could just ruthlessly take someone apart on this. It's also one of the few things where there is such an established hierarchy that when you're really kind of making a dumb argument, you can't like respond in like a tongue in cheek way.

Yeah, yeah. You can't be witty. You can't just make quips for the television cameras. And if you do that, everyone will roll their eyes and think that you're really stupid. And then they'll be more likely to rule against you.

Exactly. So what's your decision? What's your prediction on how this decision will come? There's been some stuff that, oh, maybe we'll get, you know, Katanji Brown. But I think 7-2 is the most likely outcome. We'll get the conservative justices. And I just don't see Kagan actually going for this.

And so 7-2 is a very likely outcome, I think. This is Dennis Prager. I am excited to announce the all-new Pragertopia Plus. You can listen to my show whenever it's convenient for you, all commercial-free and all on demand. Now with Prager Plus, search topics, guests, and segments all the way back to 2010. And now a truly exciting new benefit, my monthly online video get-together for Pragertopia Plus members only. This is where for an hour each month, Pragertopia Plus members get an exclusive chance to ask me anything. That's right, anything.

It's on video. I'll be talking to you and answering your questions. We may even have a special guest every now and then.

I've never done this. Submit your questions for me at Pragertopia.com. This is only available to Pragertopia Plus members. This is our chance to connect like never before.

Go to Pragertopia.com or click the banner at DennisPrager.com. Blake makes a really smart point, which is in politics, you want to appear at least as the more reasonable person. And when the Supreme Court will rule decisively that the bad guys are trying to kick you off a ballot and that's no good, it actually makes Trump look more reasonable, which in the eyes of moderate suburban voters, I'm not going to say it's going to win them over, but it's a step in the right direction. It also lets him play political victim.

It's classic, the anti-fragile thing. This didn't have to happen, yet they just insisted on doing it. And even when it happened, we talked about this, they're just going to get smacked by the Supreme Court and it'll make them look dumb and aggressive like they were trying to undermine democracy, as they say.

And I think that's how a lot of the people will hear it. And that could happen again. We could see that with the Jack Smith case. I could see that going to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court says, you're prosecuting Trump for his public speech he gave and asking us to totally rewrite the First Amendment. That could get struck down. They could strike down the New York case, say you're prosecuting him for aiding a felony that he was never charged with.

Strike that down. Every single case they've brought against Trump, they could easily have the Supreme Court smack them down on it. And on top of this, we could just end up where we get to September, we get to October, and there's this murderer's row of Supreme Court cases saying you guys massively overreached to try to take an election out of the hands of the voters.

But this was inevitable, isn't it? I mean, they can't control themselves. It's that they need to try to do everything they can to remove the risk of the election.

I don't think, I think they would hyperventilate themselves into the emergency room. There's that line, Trump derangement syndrome, and it's often just, oh, is this person on CNN acting wild? But it's true in a very real sense that Trump and the aura around him drives people into a frenzy and he makes them do things that just were unthinkable before. And a lot of those things are super self-destructive. Yeah, and I think that part of them is that they believe that on election day, if there's even a chance, you're telling me there's a chance that they won't be able to live with that.

I think that they need to try to remove all risk, all chance. And by doing so, they're actually making Donald Trump more powerful, more appealing, more reasonable. I mean, these are great headlines for Trump right now. I mean, these are, think about what the Trump headlines that we usually have to navigate, right? It's truly, almost nothing that has helped Trump in the last year has been from Trump himself.

That's what's so fascinating. They've done all these insane things, like even the border. Why do they have to have this ultra open border that they can never close? They could have passively closed it. They could, but they can't because Trump ran on the border.

So now we have to be maximum open borders. The reaction against Trump turned the left into a parody of itself in a reaction against him. And to his credit, he's kind of leaned into it.

For sure, for sure. Meaning he's leaned into this overreaction. I mean, the conventional wisdom was he gets indicted, he'll be unappealing, toxic, poisonous.

And now he's actually more popular than he even was at times during his presidency. Exactly. And as you mentioned, it makes him a victim, but in a much more appealing way of, oh, they don't want you to even be allowed to vote for him.

Yes. Whereas it's definitely possible that Trump could be stewing over some other grievance of his that is less sympathetic. If he were still running on 2020, whatever we think of that, I think a lot of voters would say, oh, that's the past, why is he running on the last election?

That's a smart point. But now he's running on, they want to shut democracy down forever. They want there to never be another election in the United States. They've unintentionally got Trump off the 2020 story, which I'm fine with, but independent voters don't like.

Exactly. And so he's now talking about now they're trying to kick me off the ballot, which is a clear and present danger. And even honest liberals don't like this. Even honest liberals are like, yeah, I don't know if we should just be removing our political opponents from ballot access. Although even they're going more and more deranged.

Lawrence Tribe, Lawrence Tribe used to be one of the most, I shudder to say, one of the most respected legal scholars in the United States for some reason. He's a lunatic now. And now he's nuts. He's just, if you, he's one of the people hurt most by the existence of Twitter, because before Twitter, he would just be the sky and the academy with this, you know, all this aura of respect around him.

And now you can just see what he says day to day. And the man is not mentally well. He is having, he's now in year five or six of a progressive mental breakdown.

No, that's right. Induced by Donald Trump. And we're seeing that with a lot of other people. And I think some of them are coming to their senses only in the sense of they're looking around and saying, guys, we're going to lose and we're going to lose entirely because of things we chose to do. I'm going to say this and Blake, I don't know if you agree, but I just, the way that they're behaving, it's as if they're trying to set the table for a lone wolf lunatic to try to assassinate Donald Trump. I hope that's not the case. I mean, it's, I mean, they would definitely cheer it on if for sure. I don't think it's a calculated plan, but I think even what I've heard from others is there's not really a centralized plan to take down Trump, which is why this happened enough. But what they're doing is they hope they subconsciously hope for it.

And if it happened, they would justify it and sell it. They would throw a parade for sure, because they'd say, well, we've tried everything else. There's nothing else we could try. All right, Blake. Excellent. Thank you for that. Email us freedom at Charlie Kirk dot com. Trump just gets stronger. But in reality, you guys get stronger because it's a movement with a single individual leading it. But it's a movement first. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us is always freedom at Charlie Kirk dot com. Thanks so much for listening and God bless.