Share This Episode
The Charlie Kirk Show Charlie Kirk Logo

Why The Right’s Ankle-Biters Target Tucker

The Charlie Kirk Show / Charlie Kirk
The Truth Network Radio
April 23, 2024 7:00 pm

Why The Right’s Ankle-Biters Target Tucker

The Charlie Kirk Show / Charlie Kirk

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 736 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

April 23, 2024 7:00 pm

Tucker is under attack again — this time, from the left. Darren Beattie of Revolver joins to discuss Tucker’s takes on the A-bombs, Gaza, and 9/11 and why Tucker’s post-Fox arc has aroused so much passion from the pundits.

Become a member at!

Support the show:

See for privacy information.


Hey everybody, welcome to The Charlie Kirk Show.

We have Darren Beatty. We go through with the clips and all of the controversy around Tucker Carlson's Joe Rogan appearance. Why is it causing such a hubbub on the right?

Why are people up in arms? We break it down. We talk about the clips with Darren Beatty, the editor-in-chief of And then we have the great Julie Kelly to break down the unredacted documents from Jack Smith that seem to indicate collusion at the highest levels of your government to get Trump long before they publicly admitted to doing so. What is the story there?

Julie had a viral story go just completely bonkers yesterday. We break it down right here. Buckle up everybody. Here we go. This country has 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. That's how you can protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at That is It's where I buy all of my gold.

Go to All right, Darren Beatty, editor-in-chief of How are you doing, my friend? How have you been?

I'm doing great and I'm particularly thrilled to be here with you. Oh, fantastic. I'm glad to have you, Darren. Darren, you wrote a piece that I thought was, like, the way you said it perfectly encapsulated how I had been feeling about the Tucker Carlson-Joe Rogan interview.

So this thing goes, I mean, mega viral. Your piece is called, conservative ankle biters throw daggers at Tucker after his wildly successful appearance on Joe Rogan, Joe Rogan's podcast. The daggers are out in full force, you write, against Tucker Carlson, and this time it's not from the usual left-wing nut jobs, but rather friendly fire from the right. That's right, the hate has been flowing like lava from conservatives online and in the media. All right, so, Darren, your perspective, I watched this unfold sort of over the weekend.

Charlie tweeted out one of the clips about the Building 7 questions. You know, it got like 3 million impressions, which surprised me, which is a fair amount. As a media commentator, as an observer of the human condition, Darren, what has been your perspective?

These ankle biters have come out for Tucker, and why? Well, I mean, I just find it filthy and really pathetic. And some of them are people that you would expect. You know, I was just looking over the piece and I even forgot about this person. Let me look up the name. One of the many ankle biters.

That's a problem. A lot of these people are such non-entities, I feel guilty for even giving attention to it. But there's a piece in the Washington Examiner, for instance, by Tiana Lowe-Ducher. Okay, nobody's heard about this person. I looked her up and I recognize her as one of these sort of glorified, sort of OnlyFans media voices for political commentaries. These people that emerge.

I think it would be more in place, it would be more suitable if I'm in a casino and somebody like this just gives me a cocktail or something. But all of a sudden, these kinds of, you know, cocktail servers, casino cocktail servers types, they're, you know, paraded in front of a camera to give political opinions that are stuffed in their mouths by, you know, whatever PR firm or sometimes they're just dumb and they catch what's in the ether. But in this case, it's the usual thing.

Oh, Tucker's a Russian agent, this and that. A boring point from a non-entity. So that's pretty much enough to be said about that. But what I find actually particularly disgusting is, you know, and there's nothing wrong with criticizing a friendly critique. But a lot of it just seems bitter and malicious. And there's even some of that coming from people who frankly should be more loyal to Tucker because they even work there. I don't want to name names in this case, but there are people even who've worked for Tucker, who were jumping on this bandwagon.

People who basically owe their entire careers to Tucker, who now just stick the knife in when they can make a cheap shot. So I think it's really revealing of the character of a lot of people, how they're doing this. That's sort of a meta point.

You know, we can talk about, you know, what's going on with the, you know, the substance of the interview and such. But because this piece was about the ankle biters, was about the response, then there's people like this glorified cocktail waitress that are just non-entities and have always been kind of never Trumper types. So that's to be expected. But what I find flagrant and especially objectionable is when people who should be have some degree of loyalty to Tucker, who in some cases owe their careers largely to Tucker, who in a variety of ways have displayed egregious and entirely unnecessary disloyalty publicly by engaging in cheap shots.

Well, and I agree with that wholeheartedly. It has been, I will admit, one of the more, let's just say from the right, a varied response. I feel like Tucker's been delving into some interesting topics lately that have elicited, you know, more criticism from the right.

And I think that's completely obvious to the casual observer. As a matter of fact, there's basically, I would say three topics in particular from this Rogan interview, just to take a step back for our audience who maybe isn't fully up to speed. They went viral. It was the Building 7, 9-11 commentary asking why did Building 7 go down, right?

Which a lot of people have asked that question for a long time, right? Was it controlled demolition? Was it something else? And we're going to play that clip. Then they talk about the moon landing. Was it faked? And then it was the bombing. This one seems to be the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War Two seems to be the one that really has gotten people's problems. That one really happened. Let's go ahead and play Cut 77, Darren, so people have the context.

Play Cut 77. Well, I love, by the way, that people on my side, I'll just say I'll just admit it on the right, you know, have spent the last 80 years defending, dropping nuclear weapons on civilians. Like, are you joking? Right. That's just like prima facie evil. Yeah.

You can't. Well, if we hadn't done that, then this that the other thing that was actually a great savings. Like, no, it's wrong to drop nuclear weapons on people. And if you find yourself arguing that it's a good thing to drop nuclear weapons on people, then you are evil. Like, it's not a it's not a tough one. Right. Is that a hard call for you? It's not a hard call for me. So, I mean, I have no problem with this debate, but this has really rankled some people.

That's a surprise to me. I didn't realize that that particular portion was so controversial. What are people saying? What are what are the Well, I mean, yeah, I mean, because I think what it hurt for a lot of people that the the dropping the bomb on Japan was a moral tragedy, but a moral necessity, right? We've we've we filter everything through this glorified World War Two lens. And so we've sort of dealt with that morally as a country. And, you know, but what I think it does is it is it isolates a current rift in the debate versus isolationism versus expanding American power abroad, right? This neocon, the remnants of this, this neocon core within the conservative side, as well as like a larger culture, the larger culture, right?

Yeah. So, Darren, just to fill out this idea, I think it's the people equate dropping the the a bomb as sort of like this. Yeah, it was something we needed to do, a necessity to win the war. But the truth is, is that there had been a negotiated peace ongoing with Japan.

It's a question, an open question of whether or not Japan would have ultimately surrendered without that very incredible action being taken. But it's America first sort of versus America only, right? Sort of this this idea that if you're opposing that action, you're opposing America. Yeah, I mean, I think that's silly. I think there's, you know, a wide range of permissible debate on this.

And certainly the position that Tucker advocated is entirely entirely sensible. So I don't understand why that's objectionable. I mean, I would happen to disagree with that.

I think, you know, the use of the nukes in that case was justified and probably the best call. But in terms of the, you know, somebody with Tucker's position being, you know, unacceptable or something, that's bizarre to me. Especially because I thought some of the other things Tucker said were more provocative than that. I was kind of surprised that people were focusing on that.

It seems like a lot of people and sort of the peace tradition. But I think it's also the context is important because if we get focused on that particular discussion, we can lose track of the fact that what Tucker was really getting at was a conversation about AI and what to do about it. That was the, you know, the context of it. Basically, the analogy that I think he made explicit between AI as this new emerging super weapon with the destructive capabilities, perhaps of a nuclear weapon, if not greater. And what can we do about this now? Is it inevitable that we should develop these things?

He called repeatedly, I don't know if he was being serious, but he was expressing a sentiment of why don't we just destroy the servers? Why don't we destroy this technology before it gets into something that can't be controlled? And of course, you know, that's an entirely sensible position as well. It's one that's very complicated, as you may know, and some listeners may know. My background is in philosophy and in particular on a German philosopher, Martin Heidegger, which is one of the great theorists of technology of the 20th century who had a view that you can't necessarily control technology in the way that people think you can. And so sometimes, you know, even efforts to go back and destroy technology are efforts to control technology that have all sorts of unanticipated ramifications. So the conversation lends itself to a lot of nuance and sophistication.

Tucker's position is one that is not out of place. It's one that has been around and it's certainly a voice that should be respected and entertained, if only because even if he's not right about what could be done or what should be done, he lends a very important and welcome sense of gravitas and weight to the question of AI. At the very least, we shouldn't take all of these things cavalierly. And I find that particularly from the tech sector, people with these tech spirits are especially impoverished philosophically and incapable of thinking in terms of what the broader significance of the technology that they're developing really would be.

They're very juvenile in a philosophical sense. And so I think it would be welcome if somebody like Tucker Carlson could introduce a sense of gravity about the direction that things are going, even if that direction is inevitable. It could still be a positive thing to have a sense of, is this not just an inevitable thing, but is it a good thing?

What's being lost? What is the threat to the way that human beings relate to the world? What's the threat to our traditional understanding of what it means to be a human being?

All of these things are wrapped up into the development of not just AI, but technology generally. And again, I don't see any reason why it should be out of place in conversation. Quite the contrary, I think it should be welcome. Well, and I agree with you. I think Tucker's genius, yes, he's incredibly charming, he's a generational media talent, but he does add a sense of gravitas to discussions that need it, right?

When we're sort of taking our eye off the ball of something morally, he's able to hone us in and make us focus. When you switch to Patriot Mobile, you're sending the message that you support free speech, religious liberty, the sanctity of life, Second Amendment, our military veterans, and first responder heroes. Their 100% U.S.-based customer service team makes switching quite easy. Keep your number, keep your phone, or upgrade. Their team will help you find their best plan for your needs. Just go to slash Charlie or call 972-PATRIOT. Get free activation when you use offer code Charlie.

Join me and make the switch today. I love Patriot Mobile. Glenn is amazing.

I was just hanging out with him in Scottsdale. Great guy, great American, really terrific what they're doing. slash Charlie. That is slash Charlie or call 972-PATRIOT. slash Charlie. So I want to make one last point on this Japanese bombing discussion. I think just in the break we were discussing that one of Tucker's incredible abilities is adding gravitas, importance, honing our focus in on an issue that is either getting overlooked or bypassed or not enough scrutiny. And I think there is this general, just from the chats I'm in, there's this general concern that perhaps by Tucker delving into all of these stray discussions that he's losing his focus. Now I don't personally feel that, but I had one friend say that Tucker reined in by Fox was somehow, you were getting the best of Tucker without some of the fringy discussion points. I actually personally just completely disagree with that. I love seeing all of Tucker's wild and errant thinking about different things because I do think he is morally very clear. And what he was actually saying about the A-bomb, you could disagree with it. Frankly, I think I do. But in the context of what's going on in Israel with Hamas and all this stuff, I think this is actually why this clip has erupted so much because it's a larger question of is it okay to kill civilians as a wartime action?

Right? And that's essentially what he's wrestling with there. And he's a little bit Israel skeptic. I think that's clear. But I think that's why it's also rankling so many people. But again, I love delving into troubling waters and discussions and debates. It's very American.

It's very conservative. Sometimes why our side feels so contentious within itself. But anyways, Darren, I want to keep going on this because I want to play, this is the Building 7 discussion.

Let's go ahead and play 79. What's the justification for classifying any document around 9-11? There's no justification.

Well, the same justification classifying the documents about the Kennedy assassination. Well, exactly 61 years later. Yeah.

Or releasing the COVID vaccine data 75 years later. Of course. Yeah. You know, the wildest thing about Tower 7 is that if you just say it looks like a controlled demolition, people get mad at you. Why?

Well, I don't know. I'm not saying that it is a controlled demolition, but I'm saying if you watch it, it looks like a controlled demolition. Darren, what's your reaction to that and why people are getting up in arms? Well, it's a very sensitive issue. 9-11 is a very sensitive issue. It's one of those things that has immediate and visceral emotional resonance with pretty much all Americans, certainly Americans of a certain age.

We all remember where we were. It was probably the most traumatic political event in many people's lifetimes. I guess for some people at MSNBC, that's January 6th, but for most regular sane people, it was 9-11.

The thing is, a lot of the narrative surrounding 9-11 became sacred and became intertwined with the psychological and emotional significance of that day, such that it's very difficult to objectively reevaluate and critique in a way that doesn't apply to certain other things like January 6th. It's clearly a very sensitive issue. It's something that, frankly, probably can't be discussed just because of the emotional attachments.

I think it would be too traumatic for the country to really reopen that conversation, so there are a lot of boundaries surrounding it. But again, I don't think this is objectionable for Tucker or Joe Rogan or any of these other people. That's the larger issue, Darren, that we are treating a three-hour-long podcast.

I actually don't know the exact runtime of that particular interview, but these are long-form. They're designed to take you into weird places and find out things about the subject that you otherwise wouldn't. Just for fun, if people are interested in this, every now and then you have a lazy afternoon, you have a lazy evening, you're looking for something to watch, you don't necessarily take it seriously, you just want something to take a look at. Well, there's a documentary called The New Pearl Harbor about 9-11, so if people are interested in this, they can go watch it. Some of the things there may be false, may be true. Some of the things are documented. It's just something that people can explore on their own if they have an interest in it. But it's clear why there are a lot of strong taboos and emotional associations with this event because it really was the most traumatic thing in most people's lifetime.

The world is in flames and biodynamics is a complete and total disaster, but it can't and won't ruin my day. Why? Because I start my day with a hot America first cup of blackout coffee.

It's 100% America and 0% grift. Blackout coffee is 100% committed to conservative values, from sourcing the beans to the roasting process, customer support and shipping, they embody true American values and accept no compromise on taste or quality. Look, you got to check out right now slash Charlie or use coupon code Charlie for 20% off your first order. That is slash Charlie.

Be awake, not woke. That's slash Charlie. Check it out.

Promo code Charlie. We're gonna get into this story that that Julie Kelly broke. She's gonna be joining us in just a second. So essentially, as you know, in the south, in South Florida, Trump is on trial for the so called classified documents case. And Julie Kelly has been on top of this judge cannon is the most hated judge on the left of by the left, because she's actually fair. And she's forced the redactions to be removed from a series of documents produced by Jack Smith, the special prosecutor on the case that is going after Trump. She's forced the removal of these redactions. And she had a thread yesterday that went absolutely bananas viral. I mean, it was everywhere. And there's, there's some very key findings that have that Julie has extracted from this. I'm looking at the Twitter link right now. It's 3 million views on this thing.

It's absolutely viral. So let's go ahead, go ahead and show while we're waiting for Julie's some of these back and forth. Let's go image 46. So image 46 shows what the DOJ on the left, you see what the DOJ and Jack Smith wanted to conceal. Look at all that black, very, very DOJ very government. And on the right. Now we we know why this is what Julie Kelly writes more proof of collaboration between the Biden White House and the NARA and NARA, which is the the archives to concoct a case.

All right, so now let's go to image 49. Oh, we do have Julie. All right, go ahead and bring Julie on. Julie Kelly from sub stack. I think we're having some tech issues.

Thank you for joining, Julie. I'm just going through these images. So, you know, why don't you set the stage? Why were these images redacted in the first, first case in the first point? And then why were they now unredacted? And what do they show us Julie Kelly?

Sorry about that, Andrew. It's one of those days, but at any rate, the classified documents case as you probably have already explained, and it relates to a motion to compel that the defense filed back in January, and this was a very lengthy motion. Trump and his two co-defendants, their attorneys asking Judge Aileen Cannon in southern Florida to consider other federal agencies as part of the prosecution team. This includes the National Archives, the DOJ Counterintelligence Unit, the FBI, the Secret Service, the intelligence community.

Many agencies, as you know, Andrew, that we've been hearing about for years have been conspiring behind the scenes to take down Donald Trump and anyone around him. So in this motion, and Jack Smith opposed, of course, this motion to compel, but there was all of this evidence that had been redacted under the existing protective order. And the defense attorney said, we want these other agencies considered part of the government's prosecution team, and we want this information that we have either in discovery or from FOIA. We want that unredacted, and Judge Cannon sided with the defense, and she has said multiple times in court, Andrew, and in her orders that she favors public transparency and the public's right to know and, of course, the defendant's right to know what evidence Jack Smith and the DOJ has.

So this has gone back and forth now for almost three months. Judge Cannon finally ordered and authorized the unredactions and unsealing of a lot of this information, protecting certain names and personal identifying information, otherwise allowing the public to see exactly what Jack Smith has and precisely what has been happening behind the scenes, including, most importantly, members of Joe Biden's White House, including his general counsel. Yeah, I mean, this is really bombshell stuff because, again, you know, we've speculated a lot on this show about the possible collusion between the Fulton County prosecutor, D.A. Willis, and the White House counsel's office.

And we've, you know, Trump is very clear. He said this is all coming from Joe Biden. This is all coming from the White House. This is, he's coordinating all of these various lawfare efforts against the president. And I think that's one of the most telling pieces of what you've uncovered here, Julie, by doing this back and forth, these images side by side, is you're able to see Jack Smith's logic of what he's redacted versus what was really hidden behind the redactions.

And one of the pieces, and I read through all of them, that I thought was extraordinarily fascinating, was this issue of timelines. And I'd like for you to walk us through this. So Trump, when this whole thing came out and the raid on Mar-a-Lago, he said, listen, we were in negotiations with them. And, you know, the government and all the mainstream media said, oh, that's bogus. You know, he's not cooperating. These documents tell a very different story that Trump was actually telling the truth.

He was cooperating. And there is sort of a timeline expectation here where NARA and all these were saying, sometimes this takes a lot of time because when somebody leaves after one term, right? Because if you leave after two terms, there's an expectation that your time is up. You better get your documents in order.

Trump finds out, okay, I'm not going to be able to remain in the oval. So got a rush, get everything out. And they sort of said, when it's a one term president, this timeline is very expanded. Can you walk us through what the expectations of the timeline was? And then all of a sudden, they lost patience. Tell us about that.

Right. Well, and this was really one of the stunning of many stunning passages is the National Archivist, David Ferriero, I believe is how you say his name, demanding that Donald Trump and his PRA, they called them Presidential Records Act representatives. Now, Donald Trump didn't pack up these boxes. Really, it looks like there were long term career employees at the White House who had packed up most of those boxes.

So he didn't know what was in these boxes or what was being transmitted. All of a sudden, the National Archives starts demanding that he turn over. First of all, they said that they wanted important presidential records that were missing. So Trump's team said, okay, well, what are you looking for?

We'll help you. Well, the letter that Barack Obama left for Donald Trump when he left office, you know, the standard transition letter from one president to the next, they claimed that that was government property. Any correspondence between North Korea and the North Korean dictator and get this, Andrew, remember Sharpiegate, the map of I think it was Hurricane Dorian that Donald Trump was marking? They claimed that that was a government record. This is how desperate and how comical it was for the archives to come up and claim, you took all of these government records and there are records and you need to return them, you know, the country's librarian.

But they were cooperating. He had six people on his team, including it looks like Mark Meadows, who were working with NARA to try to get them whatever they thought that they needed. Then they turned around and claimed the 25 boxes that they said were in the White House suddenly weren't accounted for. So what it sounded like to me, Andrew, was in early 2021 when NARA was doing this to Donald Trump and working with members of Congress and then working with Joe Biden's Department of Justice to concoct. It looked like maybe a records destruction prosecution or investigation that they initially were concocting, but it accelerated throughout 2021.

They were openly negotiating. They were trying to figure out what NARA wanted. NARA then was threatening by the summer that they were already creating, developing a criminal referral to send to DOJ related to who knows what, a missing map.

And so then in September of 2021, it looks like that is when the Biden White House General Counsel Jonathan Sue got involved as well. And so the idea that this was just the National Archives doing its job and enforcing the Presidential Records Act, of course it wasn't. It was a setup from the get go, which is why Jack Smith wants this information concealed from the public.

Now it is not thanks to the courage of Judge Cannon. And now we see emerging evidence once again, Andrew, of these powerful agencies, unaccountable bureaucrats like the National Archivist and members of the FBI and DOJ concocting yet another scam criminal investigation and prosecution of Donald Trump. Yeah, it almost seems like it was orchestrated before the normal timeline would have sort of come due, if you will, like they had an expectation this was going to be a drawn out process. But then we find out, and this is what you write, you said, contrary to public and legal assertions, NARA was working with DOJ White House to craft a criminal referral by September 2021, five months before the official referral by NARA to DOJ in February of 2022. So they the whole time, it's almost like they knew where they were going with this.

And they essentially said to the public, oh, you know, we they refused to negotiate. No, they actually knew exactly where they wanted to go with this long before they stated publicly that there was an issue. Is that basically what these documents uncover?

It does, absolutely. And I have this up on Twitter, as you said, and Donald Trump not only was cooperating, but turned over 15 boxes to NARA in January of 2022, probably a big mistake. And that's when they claim they saw classified records, and then it was off to the races from that from that point. It's it's really fascinating to me.

The timeline is is interesting, too. I mean, again, Trump hadn't declared that he was going to run. We didn't necessarily know if he was going to run at this time. I mean, we've speculated that the reason he's experiencing all this lawfare is because he chose to run again. And he could have gone away and avoided all this.

But they were developing these these Plan Bs long, long ago. Three star general Michael J. Flynn, head of the Pentagon Intelligence Agency, knew all the government's dirty secrets. He was one of the most respected generals in the military. Flynn knew what the intel world had been up to. He understood its funding.

He ordered the first audit of the use of contractors. This set off alarm bells. The explosive new documentary, Flynn, deliver the truth, whatever the cost, and covers the facts behind this scandal. Flynn told the truth. He was the most dangerous person for Donald Trump to hire. I find out the worst enemy that I'm going to face in my life is right here in America. They took my assessment and they wanted me to change it. I was like, I'm changing it. They had to get rid of Flint with in-depth interviews, archival footage and never before seen personal record to the man behind the headlines.

I just felt like I was drowning. Flynn, deliver the truth, whatever the cost. Available now. Watch it today. Go to Julie, so you right here, this has been sort of the headline that I've seen. This has gotten written up in a lot of places. So congratulations on this story, but you say more new info from unredacted evidence in classified documents case within 24 hours of receiving 15 boxes from Mar-a-Lago.

Here is the assessment by NARA. Use a colorful word that I won't repeat, but you did put a little asterisk in there. Good for you. You called it a clown show. So what did they discuss?

I mean, they got these boxes and instantly started pouring through them. What did they find? He did. So this is David Ferreiro.

I'll figure out how to say his last name. So within 24 hours. So he goes through, he guides into these boxes right away in the middle of January 2022. He's finding a lot of personal items. He's finding a lot of newspapers. He's finding some records with Trump's handwritten notes on that. Then he claimed, oh, there's, I see a lot of classified papers in here.

Well, what does that mean? Obviously, he has some sort of security clearance. I believe he was in a skip as the archivist.

I assume that he does. So he's, he's sending an email, breathless email within 24 hours. You know, here's what I found in the boxes and this, and you know, some of them are post-presidential, but also I see classified papers and I see, you know, special access program SAP, which is supposed to be a high level national defense information markings.

So this was the bum rush, right? This was not a careful process where he had a team of people, including people with high level security clearances or investigators going through this. He was the guy who got the goods. He wanted to let people know, including individuals at the DOJ, this is what I've got. And that really is what launched then the criminal referral. So then the department of justice starts to take over. And it appears that this was the deputy attorney general's office, Lisa Monaco, a long time Obama loyalist, now number two at the justice department, really running the justice department. And they are advising the archives, the proper process to go through. So DOJ can have their hands off of it off of this. So they say, okay, to the NARA's general counsel, you need to contact your inspector general, then contact the intelligence community's inspector general. Then they are the ones who ultimately can be responsible for this criminal referral to the department of justice. So this is all behind the scenes chicanery led by the DOJ, one of the same individuals, Lisa Monaco, who was involved in, you know, the Russiagate hoax.

And this is how they created the classified documents investigation. The FBI opens an investigation in February, and then Merrick Garland puts his imprimatur, authorizes at the end of March of 2022. And when was the Mar- the Mar- the Mar-a-Lago raid? That was in, was that February? August of 2022. August. That's right. Okay.

Gosh, it's all getting blurry now as the years go on. So one of the pieces that's interesting here, and I'd love for your speculation, you say you're still trying to figure it out. You said, despite extensive cooperation between the DOJ and NARA, the government in May of 2023 subpoenaed NARA. So what happened here? Was NARA trying to be like the voice of reason and the government's just so bloodthirsty to get Trump that NARA was getting in the way?

What happened here? Right. So I am still trying to figure that out, Andrew, most particularly because they mentioned crossfire hurricane records and the John Durham investigation. So apparently whenever NARA has to turn over records or they possess records, another agency asks for it. They have to then alert the holder of the records, which would be Donald Trump. So it's unclear if this subpoena is necessary. NARA had been cooperating with the DOJ as we laid out then, you know, by that point over almost two years. If they authorized the subpoena to avoid, circumvent the notification process, or if they wanted some of these, specifically asked for these responsive records, what they describe as crossfire hurricane papers. So I'm a little unclear on this.

I'm trying to figure that out. It's very strange. I think one of the things we've missed here that really underscores just how, like I said, bloodthirsty the DOJ and the government was to get Trump, is they called this whole case, Plasmic Echo. Plasmic Echo. What is that?

What the heck is that? I mean, it doesn't make any sense, but Julie, you've essentially uncovered that the White House was colluding on this and there was a whole get Trump DOJ collusion effort here, and it's really remarkable. So hat tip to you, Julie, thank you for bringing this to light. Thank you for your time today.

I know it's in demand, especially after this story. All right, God bless you. Thanks for having me. Thanks, Julie.

Thanks so much for listening. If this show means something to you, if you get something out of it, if it's a place of solace, of refuge, of calm in the midst of chaos, please consider joining That's where you get exclusive access to Charlie, unlike anywhere else. And you help us keep the lights on and you help us remain fearless in the face of censorship and boycotts and cancellations, which there are many.

Trust me, on the back end of the show, I see it all. So please join and help us out. Thanks so much. Talk to you soon.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-04-23 20:33:54 / 2024-04-23 20:48:30 / 15

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime