Speaker 1: I just don't have a ton of confidence in the
Speaker 1: FBI or the men who run it. And I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that out of ignorance at all. That's a scary
Speaker 1: part too. I'm not alleging anything. I'm just saying I
Speaker 1: think it's really important that we have that. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: also I have no I mean I never wanted to Twitter. Yes,
Speaker 1: like leaders of the FBI are on Twitter, like what.
Speaker 2: As you guys know, I basically never do episodes in
Speaker 2: back to back days. But we got a deluge of
Speaker 2: material that I need to dive into that I'm sure
Speaker 2: you're interested in, so we're going to do it. First, up,
Speaker 2: we got Tucker Carlson going on with the Vaughn where
Speaker 2: he finally opens up about his opinion as to the
Speaker 2: Tyler Robinson Charlie Kirk assassination. All of that, We've got
Speaker 2: Erica Kirk finally addressing Candice Owans, though she doesn't say
Speaker 2: her by name, but she is clearly referencing her and
Speaker 2: taking the globes off metaphorically, and I think that opens
Speaker 2: up an entirely new arena that I'm now going to
Speaker 2: be forced to talk about Erica Kirk. Despite the fact
Speaker 2: that I have tried desperately not to, but she is
Speaker 2: the CEO of TPUSA, have no choice, so forgive me, but.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna do it. I gotta do it.
Speaker 2: Also, Jack Pisobik continues to push fed slap of the
Speaker 2: most egregious variety. So I have to dismantle those lies.
Speaker 2: And Andrew Colvitt, who is the pr Rep four TPUSA,
Speaker 2: is pushing a really bizarre line of reasoning that we're
Speaker 2: going to unpack and then devour because that's what we
Speaker 2: do here. Welcome to Liberty Lockdown. This is Clint Russell.
Speaker 2: I never even say that. I never do an intro anymore.
Speaker 2: I'm Clint Hi. I hope you guys are enjoying the show.
Speaker 2: Please do subscribe. All right, let's get into it.
Speaker 4: Come after me, call me names, I don't care, call
Speaker 4: me what you want, go down that rabbit hole whatever.
Speaker 4: But when you go after my family, my Turning Point
Speaker 4: USA family, my Charlie kirkshow family, when you go after
Speaker 4: the people that I love, and you're making hundreds and
Speaker 4: thousands of dollars every single episode going after the people
Speaker 4: that I love because somehow they're in on this.
Speaker 2: No, you know, I have to say it. I've never
Speaker 2: seen you like that.
Speaker 4: No, I'm I'm very this is righteous anger because this
Speaker 4: is not okay. It's not healthy, this is a mind virus. Yes,
Speaker 4: I believe in our judics j jewdicial system.
Speaker 1: I do.
Speaker 4: We have a hell of a team working on this.
Speaker 4: Excuse my French, but this is not okay. So you
Speaker 4: want to put these people back in the box where
Speaker 4: they've been creeping from. I don't care what box you're in.
Speaker 2: First off, I got to say the Freudian slip of
Speaker 2: the pregnant pause while saying judicial system digitals.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 4: Yes, I believe in our judics jewdicial system.
Speaker 2: I mean we have to find humor in the tragedy, right.
Speaker 2: That was funny. Also, I just kind of say it's
Speaker 2: the energy that she has had in the entire aftermath.
Speaker 2: I know this is a very unpopular thing to say,
Speaker 2: and yes, people more in differently. I've made this point
Speaker 2: myself multiple times. I have tried so hard not to
Speaker 2: be judgmental, but just juxtapose her righteous anger there to
Speaker 2: this father.
Speaker 6: Forgive them for they not know what they do. That man,
Speaker 6: that young man, I forgive him.
Speaker 2: So if you murder my husband, you are forgiven if
Speaker 2: you question the narrative about the murder of my husband,
Speaker 2: you're an enemy.
Speaker 3: Maybe she has.
Speaker 2: Both of those emotions simultaneously. I guess it's possible. It's
Speaker 2: just like she was pushed forward as this, like marry figure,
Speaker 2: you know this incredibly forgiving, incredibly righteous, but just unfathomably forgiving.
Speaker 2: That was like a week after her husband was assassinated
Speaker 2: that she's saying, I forgive him, And I even said,
Speaker 2: I was like, that was powerful, you know, especially for
Speaker 2: someone who struggles with my own faith to see someone
Speaker 2: that could have that level of faith and just be like, yes,
Speaker 2: you know, this is the Christian thing to do. But
Speaker 2: then you juxtapose it with her a couple months later,
Speaker 2: and she's so loudly and angrily basically chastising Candiss Owans,
Speaker 2: and it's like, I don't know.
Speaker 3: How does does this sit right with everybody? Does everybody
Speaker 3: good with it?
Speaker 2: I don't know, I don't know. I just being honest.
Speaker 2: The difference in the two is stark. Can we at
Speaker 2: least acknowledge that? And just a brief reminder, this is
Speaker 2: what Charlie Kirk had to say about Candie Owns one
Speaker 2: month before his death.
Speaker 3: She's a great friend.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 7: Look, I don't agree with everything Candace says, but you
Speaker 7: know what I don't do. I don't stop being friends
Speaker 7: with people just because people morally blackmail me. I don't
Speaker 7: do that, and you shouldn't either. I Look, I have
Speaker 7: different views on things as Candace. I have different views
Speaker 7: on Israel than Candace. I have different views on a
Speaker 7: lot of geopolitics. But honestly, I traveled the country with candas.
Speaker 7: I went to her wedding, I saw her meet her husband.
Speaker 7: I went to Israel with Candace, which is a fun
Speaker 7: story I'll tell you at some point. But what I
Speaker 7: don't like is when people demand you must stop being
Speaker 7: friends with somebody. Whoa, whoa, whoa. That's a left wing tactic.
Speaker 7: Don't do that. And so I think the world of Candace.
Speaker 7: She's a great mother, She certainly has very very fun
Speaker 7: opinions at times, and she's a great talent. She says
Speaker 7: a lot of stuff that sometimes I don't agree with,
Speaker 7: but that's what makes our relationship and our friendship interesting.
Speaker 7: My advice to all of you, you might not like somebody,
Speaker 7: but never tell somebody like me to stop being friends
Speaker 7: with somebody. On an inner personal level just because of disagreement.
Speaker 3: It's bad.
Speaker 7: So the left does and we should rise about as conservatives.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Now, there's a couple interesting angles about what he had
Speaker 2: to say there. First off, he says, I'm not going
Speaker 2: to disavow or unfriend somebody because of their opinions. This
Speaker 2: is an interesting circumstance because this is about Candace talking
Speaker 2: about his own murder. So this is a very unique situation.
Speaker 2: But I got to remind you it was also Charlie Kirk, who.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: It was five years ago or so. He was texting
Speaker 2: Candis owns saying he has consistent dreams that he was
Speaker 2: going to die young and that the path that he
Speaker 2: was on with TPUSA was going to bring about his
Speaker 2: early death. He said that, and he also said that
Speaker 2: God brought Candiss Owans to him to finish out that mission,
Speaker 2: like almost with the assumption that he was going to
Speaker 2: die young and that Candis Owans was going to be
Speaker 2: He said this his David David and Gliath David, Like,
Speaker 2: I mean, these are just really like I get chills
Speaker 2: even as I talk about it, because it's really the foreshadowing,
Speaker 2: the foresight. I don't know, the prediction power and all
Speaker 2: that is just really onspiring and kind of creepy all
Speaker 2: at the same time. But like his repeated praise of
Speaker 2: Candace and other interviews also is that she's a fighter.
Speaker 2: She's going to fight to the very end, to the
Speaker 2: bitter end, and that's what he loved about Candisson.
Speaker 3: So it's just.
Speaker 2: Really it's really hard for me to side with the
Speaker 2: TPUSA TPUSA side, or Erica Kirk for that matter, especially
Speaker 2: as the CEO, because that's like, that's not what Charlie
Speaker 2: liked about Kennis. He liked that they disagreed, and he
Speaker 2: liked that she was a fighter. That's what he loved.
Speaker 2: But then additionally it inspires me because this is the
Speaker 2: exact same energy I had in the episode just yesterday
Speaker 2: where I'm saying all of these disagreements I have. I
Speaker 2: have disagreements with Fwent, Desy and Carol Dave Smith from
Speaker 2: time to time, very rare, Tim.
Speaker 3: Poole regularly as of late.
Speaker 2: And actually I got some replies on that episode and
Speaker 2: people were telling me, Clint, you should stop saying that
Speaker 2: you're friends with Tim Poole, like it's gonna damage you.
Speaker 3: And I was like, I don't even think like that.
Speaker 3: That's not how I view these things. Tim is my friend.
Speaker 2: You think, oh, they're like, his ratings are going down,
Speaker 2: so you should fucking abandon ship.
Speaker 3: No. No, I'm not.
Speaker 2: Friends with someone because they're gonna help me, or because
Speaker 2: they're gonna hurt me reputationally, whatever the fuck that means.
Speaker 2: And by the way, if you think that I should
Speaker 2: not be friends with someone because it's going to hurt me,
Speaker 2: fuck you and fuck off. Okay, let me just make
Speaker 2: that very clear. That's not how I view things now.
Speaker 2: I don't think Tim has been handling this well. I've
Speaker 2: been as of his friends. I've been as outspoken about
Speaker 2: that as anybody. But that doesn't change that I have
Speaker 2: love for my friends. That's how I function. So that
Speaker 2: rubs you the wrong way. Oh fuck you.
Speaker 3: Moving on.
Speaker 2: The weirdest aspect in all this, though, is that Cannas
Speaker 2: Owens said repeatedly that all Erica Kirk has to do
Speaker 2: is contact her and tell her to stop, and she
Speaker 2: hasn't quite clearly, because otherwise she would have said that publicly.
Speaker 3: All she would have to do is say that, and.
Speaker 2: Then the pr and the public would turn against Candace.
Speaker 2: You would think, but she hasn't done that. And then
Speaker 2: when she does call out Candace, she still doesn't call
Speaker 2: her by name, and she also doesn't say that, she
Speaker 2: doesn't say Candace, please stop, just stop.
Speaker 3: It's just like, is this I don't understand. I don't
Speaker 3: understand the paradigm.
Speaker 2: And then you've got TPUSA so bluffing that they want
Speaker 2: to have Candice OANs do the live stream or attend
Speaker 2: the live stream, and now because she says, well, I
Speaker 2: can't attend on that day, but I would love to
Speaker 2: join via zoom or stream yard or whatever, and they're like, nope,
Speaker 2: you can't. You have to be in person. And it's like, well,
Speaker 2: I'm facing death threats, so I'd rather just do it
Speaker 2: by a stream, and they're like nope. And then she's like, well,
Speaker 2: my friend Charlie Kirk, your boss got assassinated a couple
Speaker 2: months ago, so I'd rather not do it like on
Speaker 2: a pre scheduled, you know, live shoot in front of
Speaker 2: an audience where people will know where I'm at. And
Speaker 2: they're like, nope, got to do it in person. It's like, oh,
Speaker 2: I don't think you guys actually want to talk to
Speaker 2: her about this. I don't think you guys want to
Speaker 2: answer these questions. That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Speaker 3: I'm not.
Speaker 2: I'm definitely not. You guys are scared to death. And
Speaker 2: for the record, I've been thinking about this a lot.
Speaker 2: I genuinely don't think that most or even any of
Speaker 2: TPUSA was actually involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 2: I think it's more likely that many of them are
Speaker 2: doing nefarious shit. I don't know if it's financial, or
Speaker 2: relationships with our government or foreign governments or something that
Speaker 2: would probably give them pause when it comes to having
Speaker 2: an open dialogue about you know, ask whatever you want,
Speaker 2: well answer it. Honestly, it's like I can't do that.
Speaker 2: So I think a lot of people are jumping to
Speaker 2: the conclusion that, oh, they were actually involved in this.
Speaker 2: Maybe maybe they were, I don't know, but I think
Speaker 2: the more likely answer is that there's other shit that
Speaker 2: they're very nervous about coming out. And let me give
Speaker 2: you a good example as to why. I think that
Speaker 2: if you wanted to shut Candice Owens up, especially with
Speaker 2: all the libelist, slenderest stuff she's been putting out there
Speaker 2: about you guys, you could sue. You haven't my guess,
Speaker 2: just a guess, is that during that process there would
Speaker 2: probably be discovery, and you don't want to have anything
Speaker 2: forced in discovery to come out just a guess. So
Speaker 2: that's my read of it as of now. I could
Speaker 2: be wrong, but probably not usually not.
Speaker 5: I'm pleased to be able to announce with you, and
Speaker 5: I think it's appropriate. The Turning Point Board has unanimously
Speaker 5: selected Erica Kirk as the new CEO and Chair of
Speaker 5: the board. And not only is that amazing in and
Speaker 5: of itself, but I can assure you, Megan, that Charlie
Speaker 5: told me personally, and he told others. He probably told
Speaker 5: Mikey that if anything ever happened to him, that this
Speaker 5: is exactly what he wanted.
Speaker 1: Well, I have the chills. It had to be.
Speaker 5: And let me just add one more thing, and I
Speaker 5: want Mikey and to chime in.
Speaker 1: Here as well.
Speaker 5: But in the immediate hours afterwards, Erica got a call
Speaker 5: from somebody very important. Leave that vague out of privacy,
Speaker 5: but she got a call from somebody very important, and
Speaker 5: the question was.
Speaker 3: What do you know?
Speaker 5: Sort of asking how much of what's going on behind
Speaker 5: the scenes and with the relationship, what do you know?
Speaker 5: And her reply back was everything, I know everything.
Speaker 3: So just a reminder. I mean, that's Andrew Colvett.
Speaker 2: He's the PR rep talking to Megan Kelly about Erica
Speaker 2: Kirk being named as the new CEO. And for the record,
Speaker 2: I don't have any problem with that, Like it's his wife. Yeah,
Speaker 2: she's probably the one that's best equipped to carry on
Speaker 2: his legacy. Sure, fine, I don't really care. It's like
Speaker 2: it's their prerogative to do whatever you want. However, I
Speaker 2: do find it cryptic and interesting that she gets a
Speaker 2: call from a high level government official and he doesn't
Speaker 2: say who it is. I'm guessing Trump or Vance, don't
Speaker 2: know for sure, and they ask her how much do
Speaker 2: you know? It's like, so, you got a high level
Speaker 2: US politician I assume, contacting the widow of Charlie Kirk
Speaker 2: in the soon aftermath of his assassination, and they ask,
Speaker 2: very cryptically, how much do you know? And she says,
Speaker 2: I know everything. I'll just be honest with you. What
Speaker 2: that comes across to me as is there is more
Speaker 2: to the TPUSA organization than the public understands. And I've
Speaker 2: already done some expose a's on this. They have relationships
Speaker 2: with what it looks like is geo fencing, where basically
Speaker 2: you track all of the data around your live events
Speaker 2: and you then use that data for propaganda purposes. And
Speaker 2: I think that they have a relationship with foreign government
Speaker 2: as well as our own. That's just my guess. So
Speaker 2: that's my read of things. Again, could be wrong, allegedly.
Speaker 2: Let me throw that in there just to be safe.
Speaker 2: I don't know. Tell me why that conversation would be
Speaker 2: had with a widow in that moment by a high
Speaker 2: level American politician.
Speaker 3: Isn't that notable? I think it's notable.
Speaker 2: And then additionally, I just wanted to say, I don't
Speaker 2: want to be critical of Erica Kirk. I've said this
Speaker 2: so many times. She is a widow. It's tragic. The
Speaker 2: last thing I want to do is question her. But
Speaker 2: if you're interested in getting justice and you have a
Speaker 2: narrative that doesn't make sense. And now the CEO of
Speaker 2: that organization who is not being forthcoming with additional information
Speaker 2: is his widow. What choice do I have? And let
Speaker 2: me just say, if you guys want to reclaim the
Speaker 2: high ground, if you want to actually regain the public's trust,
Speaker 2: there's a very straightforward way of going about this and
Speaker 2: it's basically the complete opposite of everything you've been doing.
Speaker 2: And I already said why I think you're not doing
Speaker 2: what I'm about to say, but what you ought to do.
Speaker 2: Erica Kirk ought to sit down with Canis Owns, the
Speaker 2: whole TPUSA crew ought to do it too. Apparently they're
Speaker 2: not willing, and since they're not willing, I'm assuming that
Speaker 2: Erica won't either. But that is the pathway forward. Full disclosure,
Speaker 2: full openness, full dialogue in the public's eye, no behind
Speaker 2: the scenes, no shadiness.
Speaker 3: Just tell it like it is. That would help so
Speaker 3: much with all this.
Speaker 8: I know that this is a now one hundred and
Speaker 8: fifty million dollar in the last three month organization and
Speaker 8: we employ tons of people.
Speaker 1: But you can't.
Speaker 8: You can't critique, you can't critique the FAM. And I
Speaker 8: hate to say this, but I'm going to be very
Speaker 8: clear here. This is why there are many people who
Speaker 8: do not believe that women are equipped to lead companies,
Speaker 8: because what you are watching here is an unbelievably emotional
Speaker 8: response that is absent of any logic. Okay, if you
Speaker 8: really care about your team, answer the questions. Okay, just
Speaker 8: demystify the entire event. Answer, come out, sit down, answer
Speaker 8: the questions. So people don't think turning Point USA look
Speaker 8: so suspicious. Don't try to like mom the organization and say, well,
Speaker 8: mother's upset because people are coming after her kids and
Speaker 8: all of the subsidi multimillion dollar subsidiaries.
Speaker 1: That's my children, okay.
Speaker 2: And that would help so much if Dan and Cash
Speaker 2: and all these people would do it and don't give
Speaker 2: me this nonsense that, oh well, we can't talk about
Speaker 2: it because it's an ongoing case. Every single day, Pasovic
Speaker 2: and Benny Johnson, all these people come out and they say,
Speaker 2: Tyler Robinson did it.
Speaker 3: It's opening to shut Clay case.
Speaker 2: Blah blah blah, and then they go, but if you
Speaker 2: question that, you're you're tainting the jury pool.
Speaker 3: Oh I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: Is basically condemning a man who has not faced trial.
Speaker 2: Not condemning the jury pool. You're doing the exact same
Speaker 2: thing on the inverse, So shut the fuck up. It's ridiculous.
Speaker 2: Speaking of here's Pasovic pushing his fed slop as he
Speaker 2: is wont to do.
Speaker 9: Tyler Robinson to me, seems to be the one who
Speaker 9: did this, and it's very clear.
Speaker 5: It's very clear.
Speaker 9: That Tyler Robinson is the killer because again, his parents
Speaker 9: were the ones that turned him in. It's really as
Speaker 9: simple as that. You know, if you go any further,
Speaker 9: you know, if it listens to the FBI, you know,
Speaker 9: if you listen to government, it was he just go
Speaker 9: look at it. Listen to his parents. Just go listen
Speaker 9: to his parents. His parents are the ones who turned
Speaker 9: him in. That's why I keep saying it over and
Speaker 9: over and over, because none of the other theories make
Speaker 9: any sense beyond that point. His parents turned him in.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: No, Actually, the reason you keep saying it over and
Speaker 2: over and over is because you're trying to program your
Speaker 2: audience into believing that here's the truth.
Speaker 3: Though I know it's inconvenient.
Speaker 2: But there are reports out there that totally counter what
Speaker 2: you're saying that. In fact, Tyler Robinson was turned in
Speaker 2: by his parents because they were told that he was
Speaker 2: about to be basically swat rated and probably killed, so
Speaker 2: they turned him in to basically keep him alive. That's
Speaker 2: one counter possibility to your official narrative.
Speaker 3: There.
Speaker 2: And then also, and this is the key one, the
Speaker 2: surveillance footage. This is reported on by Utah News. The
Speaker 2: surveillance footage of him turning himself in disappeared.
Speaker 3: Look it up. It's gone.
Speaker 2: So we don't have any actual proof that that's even
Speaker 2: what happened. We don't have any proof that his family
Speaker 2: actually turned him in, or that it was, you know,
Speaker 2: against his will, or that he didn't walk in there
Speaker 2: alone or anything. We don't know anything, Okay, so just stop.
Speaker 2: Oh I'm so confident because his parents turned him in.
Speaker 2: It's like you don't no fucking anything because of that.
Speaker 2: That's about his weak and evidence as I could possibly imagine.
Speaker 2: And then on top of that, Oh, he turns himself
Speaker 2: in and that's how I know he's guilty. But then
Speaker 2: he pleads not guilty. So are you gonna include that part?
Speaker 3: No you don't. Do you include the part about the
Speaker 3: surveillance footage having gone missing?
Speaker 2: No you don't. It's like you're a fed slop operative.
Speaker 2: I just gotta say it how it is. You're pushing
Speaker 2: bullshit because you want to push a narrative. I am
Speaker 2: at least open about what I do and don't know.
Speaker 2: What I don't know is who killed Charlie Kirk. And
Speaker 2: guess what you don't either.
Speaker 3: I am open to a whole flurry of things.
Speaker 5: What I'm not open to is a theory that Tyler
Speaker 5: Robinson didn't kill Charlie who else was involved? Sure, I
Speaker 5: can talk about that, was there other voices in row?
Speaker 5: But I'm not open to that because guess what, the
Speaker 5: evidence of that case is incredibly water tight, and I
Speaker 5: would like for us to focus on the rise of
Speaker 5: left wing violence.
Speaker 2: That's exactly how honest people function, right they go, I'm
Speaker 2: open to look, I'm open to anything, except for whether
Speaker 2: or not Tyler Robinson was actually the murder. It's like, oh, well,
Speaker 2: then you're not open. You're definitely not open. Oh well,
Speaker 2: it's water tight. Clint calmed down. The case is water tight.
Speaker 2: I never even heard that saying, but okay, it's water
Speaker 2: tight Andrew Covid. No, actually it's not. It's far from
Speaker 2: water tight, whatever that means. It is just rife with holes.
Speaker 2: As I've said before, as wide as a thirty out
Speaker 2: six wound. That's how big these holes are in the
Speaker 2: narrative that we've been fed. So not good enough. But
Speaker 2: in that very same interview, guess what else he had
Speaker 2: to say?
Speaker 5: There are going to be some immovables here, right, non negotiables.
Speaker 5: What are those that Israel has a right to exist,
Speaker 5: that it has a right to defend itself, that we
Speaker 5: fully reject hatred of Jewish people, you know, anti Semitism,
Speaker 5: all that stuff, because I think there has to be
Speaker 5: there has to be definitive lines.
Speaker 2: So now, just to give context, he's being asked about
Speaker 2: basically the new version of TPUSA in the aftermath of
Speaker 2: Charlie Kirk's passing and what they're going to basically require
Speaker 2: of speakers, attendees, whatever, and he says the hard line,
Speaker 2: the hard line is that this is a tp USA,
Speaker 2: and he goes, all right, so what are what are
Speaker 2: some non negotiables?
Speaker 3: Israel has a right to exist tp USA.
Speaker 2: What the I gotta calm down. My blood pressure goes
Speaker 2: crazy when I do that shit. I don't understand.
Speaker 10: Why everyone just accepts the paradigm that a conservative political
Speaker 10: organization in America, the most successful youth political conservative leaning
Speaker 10: political organization and get out the vote operation in America,
Speaker 10: and like a non negotiable has to be their opinion
Speaker 10: on Israel specifically, not any other nation, not any other
Speaker 10: nation's right to exist or any other p's right to exist.
Speaker 3: No Israel. So in this.
Speaker 2: Interview, he says Israel has right to exist. Anti Semitism bad.
Speaker 2: Tyler Robinson did it. Those are the those are the three.
Speaker 2: Like he's very he's very like kind of pliable on
Speaker 2: basically everything else. He says on this he's trying to
Speaker 2: be very, very tepid and kind of dance around criticizing
Speaker 2: Candice Owns overtly, and he's like he's being very very
Speaker 2: wishy washy on a lot of stuff. But those three
Speaker 2: things not negotiable. And I'm just thinking to myself, like, oh,
Speaker 2: that's interesting. That's that's interesting, isn't it. Isn't it noteworthy
Speaker 2: that like the pr rep for TPUSA says, everything is yeah, well,
Speaker 2: you know, it's all negotiable except for Israel has the
Speaker 2: right to exist antism, anti Semitism is bad. Tyler Robinson
Speaker 2: did it. And it's like, all right, well, then I
Speaker 2: think I understand your marching orders. That's how I feel,
Speaker 2: and let me explain why. Oftentimes, when TPUSA is defending themselves,
Speaker 2: they will say things like people don't understand what's going
Speaker 2: on behind the scenes, and that we're asking all of
Speaker 2: these questions too, and that we're pushing hard, and that
Speaker 2: no one wants justice for Charlie more than us. And
Speaker 2: basically the implication is is that we don't know everything,
Speaker 2: that there are things that we are not privy to.
Speaker 2: So my question to you, mister Colvid, would be, why
Speaker 2: is it that you have evidence, you have information that
Speaker 2: makes you one hundred percent confident, so much so that
Speaker 2: you say it's a non negotiable that you're not open
Speaker 2: to debate about whether or not Tyler Robinson did this.
Speaker 3: How do you know that?
Speaker 2: And if you are privy to additional evidence that the
Speaker 2: public is not privy to, how is that not jeopardizing
Speaker 2: the prosecution? Sincere question? And if you're privy to it
Speaker 2: and the rest of the TPUSA organization is privy to it,
Speaker 2: why can't the public be privy to it as well?
Speaker 2: These are really this is not me being some conspirat
Speaker 2: hard like, this is legitimate questions. How do you know
Speaker 2: things that we don't that make you confident when we aren't.
Speaker 3: Can you bridge that gap? Can you bring us together?
Speaker 2: Because it would help with the reputation of your organization
Speaker 2: if you were to do so, But for some reason
Speaker 2: you're not willing. And I have to come away with
Speaker 2: a conclusion that that's because there is deception going on.
Speaker 2: There is you're not being honest. I can't say definitively why,
Speaker 2: but you guys are not being honest. It's just as
Speaker 2: simple as that. And until you stop with that, you're
Speaker 2: going to continue to lose the pr war you are
Speaker 2: And as the pr Rep four TPUSA, I would.
Speaker 3: Think you would know that. So what the fuck? What
Speaker 3: are you doing? Anybody else mystified by this?
Speaker 1: I sure am I don't understand the official story at all.
Speaker 1: Uh I assassination. I don't, I don't. I don't understand it,
Speaker 1: and I want to make sure that there is a,
Speaker 1: like a truly rigorous and honest federal investigation of it.
Speaker 1: And I'm definitely concerned about that. Ab Recently, Candace said
Speaker 1: that Egyptian registered aircraft were following Erica Kirk Charlie's widow
Speaker 1: around for a number of years in different places in
Speaker 1: the world. That's one of the weirdest things I've ever heard,
Speaker 1: and I just want to say that that is factually true.
Speaker 1: That's true. So that's like the one data point that
Speaker 1: I happen to know is true. Also, her claim that
Speaker 1: you know there were kind of a disproportionally large number
Speaker 1: of foreign ministured cell phones at the event. That's also true.
Speaker 1: So what is that add up to? I don't know, So.
Speaker 2: As is so often the case, Tucker Carlson is being
Speaker 2: the voice of reason. I gotta say I really appreciate
Speaker 2: that he was willing to confirm those things, because I
Speaker 2: haven't dug deep to actually figure out if these Egyptian
Speaker 2: plane stories from Canis are legit. I assumed that they
Speaker 2: were because I think it would be easily disprovable. But
Speaker 2: I think it's interesting, Like anybody who says, like, oh,
Speaker 2: that's a nothing.
Speaker 3: Burger, He's like, all right, well, then prove it.
Speaker 2: Prove that that's Like, why is it that Erica Kirk
Speaker 2: has dozens of instances of her plane being basically shadowed
Speaker 2: by Egyptian aircraft? Can we just get a fucking answer?
Speaker 1: Is that?
Speaker 6: Like?
Speaker 3: Is that so much to ask? Am? I?
Speaker 2: You know, an anarchist, as Kesh Betel called us for
Speaker 2: asking these questions? Why were there such a disproportionate amount
Speaker 2: of cell phones registered in foreign countries at the TPUSA
Speaker 2: event where Charlie Kirk was assassinated? Like these are very
Speaker 2: basic questions that if you had a legitimate investigation going on,
Speaker 2: they would be asked and answered.
Speaker 1: But it means that, you know, the FBI has a
Speaker 1: moral and legal obligation to look in every direction and
Speaker 1: to be open minded as you would in any investigation
Speaker 1: in journalism and science. It's all the same process. I
Speaker 1: don't know the answer, and I'm going to sift through
Speaker 1: everything as open mindedly as I can, as honestly as
Speaker 1: I can to get to what the truth is. And
Speaker 1: I just want to make sure that is happening. And
Speaker 1: I just don't have a ton of confidence in the
Speaker 1: FBI or the men who run it. And I'm I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that out of ignorance at all. That's a
Speaker 1: scary part too.
Speaker 2: Now people are going to say, well, you just got
Speaker 2: to wait for the trial. Just wait for the trial.
Speaker 3: Clinton. I'm sure they are asking these questions. You're wrong.
Speaker 2: I don't believe you. And I'll tell you why because
Speaker 2: cash Pttel when he's being asked about these things, he's saying,
Speaker 2: you know, as of now, we don't see anything. We
Speaker 2: don't see any reason to believe that anybody else was involved,
Speaker 2: aside from Tyler Robinson. Like, first off, you do have
Speaker 2: these social media posts from people who apparently had foreknowledge
Speaker 2: of the attack. That's true, that did happen. Now, whether
Speaker 2: or not it was just some weird cryptic guess, Okay,
Speaker 2: maybe I doubt it. So even if you think that
Speaker 2: Tyler did it, there's no way that there weren't people
Speaker 2: that were read in. That's my opinion as of now,
Speaker 2: like for sure, and I think almost certainly Twiggs his
Speaker 2: boyfriend girlfriend had to have known what was going on,
Speaker 2: and if anything, that would be the reason that those
Speaker 2: bizarre text messages between the two that go like, you
Speaker 2: know I did this, you didn't know anything about it,
Speaker 2: but here's all of the details that the FBI is
Speaker 2: in Privy two seems like nonsense to me. So I
Speaker 2: think that his boyfriend girlfriend was at least read in,
Speaker 2: if not involved. And then if it wasn't Tyler at
Speaker 2: all and he was a patsy or whatever, well then
Speaker 2: we have a whole litany of other questions. Start with
Speaker 2: the Egyptian planes, the cell phones thirty odd six, the
Speaker 2: where is the rifle when he's jumping off the building,
Speaker 2: how did he put it together? Why did he turn
Speaker 2: himself in but also plead not guilty? And then really
Speaker 2: I just want to know why the entire TPUSA organization
Speaker 2: and Posobic and Johnson and Tim and others are so
Speaker 2: confident that Candice is just barking up an empty tree,
Speaker 2: and all of us are, but they're like adamantly convinced.
Speaker 2: Not Tim, but all the rest of them are just
Speaker 2: adamant that Tyler Robinson did it and he acted alone,
Speaker 2: and it's an open and shotcase.
Speaker 3: Why why are they also confident? I don't know.
Speaker 2: I do not know why, but it feels like fed
Speaker 2: slop narrative. It feels like they are pushing bullshit. And
Speaker 2: everybody who's been in this world long enough, everybody who
Speaker 2: had their eyes opened since the lockdowns or prior or
Speaker 2: since the Ukraine War or gods or whatever else, we
Speaker 2: all know when we're being lied to, and we are
Speaker 2: being lied to. I just don't know what the answer is.
Speaker 2: Aside from the lie. All I know is you're lying,
Speaker 2: and I don't know specifically why. So until I'm content
Speaker 2: with you no longer lying, I'm going to continue to
Speaker 2: call you out. So Tucker rightfully, after he basically accidentally
Speaker 2: weighed in on the kirk assassination with the Aubonne, he
Speaker 2: did a monologue that he put out on x today
Speaker 2: where he just basically explains his logic and I don't
Speaker 2: find like, I don't even understand how anybody could disagree
Speaker 2: with a word of it.
Speaker 3: Basically just says we.
Speaker 2: Can't trust the FBI, and there's a lot of variables
Speaker 2: in this story that don't add up, and that we
Speaker 2: deserve answers to and that we ought to continue to
Speaker 2: demand them.
Speaker 1: I said, in effect, you know, I don't trust the FBI,
Speaker 1: and that gave some people the impression that I was
Speaker 1: accusing them of being involved in Charlie's assassination, and of
Speaker 1: course I wasn't, and I certainly didn't mean to. But
Speaker 1: it gives me the chance now to say what I think,
Speaker 1: which is that we should not necessarily trust the FBI,
Speaker 1: and by the way, why would we. It's not an
Speaker 1: attack on the political leadership of it. I've known Dan Bungino,
Speaker 1: for example, for a long time, and like Dan and
Speaker 1: don't imagine he would ever be involved in intentionally covering
Speaker 1: up a murder of somebody. I don't believe that. But
Speaker 1: Dan Bongino and Cash Matel for that matter, are at
Speaker 1: the top of the org chart. But this is a
Speaker 1: huge organization and parts of it act independently from leadership.
Speaker 1: That's the nature of bureaucracy. So saying well, I like
Speaker 1: Dan Bungino and don't think he would do something wrong
Speaker 1: on purpose, which is how I feel, doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: I trust the FBI or have to trust the FBI.
Speaker 1: And again, why would I, For example, as the FBI
Speaker 1: has done manufacturing crimes, setting people up, distorting justice at
Speaker 1: the opposite of their job, of course, which is to
Speaker 1: get to justice through facts and then to tell the
Speaker 1: rest of us how they arrived at this conclusion, to
Speaker 1: prove to the rest of us that the right people
Speaker 1: are being punished. So we're not under any obligation. I'm
Speaker 1: going to do my best to stay out of it
Speaker 1: because I love Charlie and I want justice to be
Speaker 1: done in this case. But the rest of us should
Speaker 1: remain skeptical. We have a duty to remain skeptical, and
Speaker 1: we should not be ashamed of our skepticism.
Speaker 2: Okay, real controversial take there, but apparently that's a cancelable
Speaker 2: offense these days. I just rejected, and I think we
Speaker 2: all reject it because we've all been told, especially after
Speaker 2: the vaccine bullshit, like, oh, trust the science, you can't
Speaker 2: question anything like that doesn't work on us anymore, Like
Speaker 2: we're totally immune to it. Oh, you're a bad person
Speaker 2: if you ask this question, gonna ask it.
Speaker 3: Fuck you.
Speaker 2: That's that's the energy we're We're not playing this game
Speaker 2: anymore of being shamed into silence.
Speaker 1: No, when we get down to the substance of what
Speaker 1: Nick Quente says, do you agree with it?
Speaker 11: I don't agree with Nick Fuentes on everything. I don't
Speaker 11: agree with anybody on everything.
Speaker 1: Do you think that Jewish gangsters are controlling the country?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 11: Not really. I am concerned about the impact of Israel
Speaker 11: in our country. I think that a lot of young
Speaker 11: people are and not and I'm concerned about it in
Speaker 11: the way of you know, young people's biggest concern right
Speaker 11: now on both sides of the aisle is the economy.
Speaker 11: We are concerned about being able to buy homes. We
Speaker 11: are concerned about affordability. And so when we see the news,
Speaker 11: when we see how much money is being sent overseas
Speaker 11: to Ukraine, to Israel, whatever it may be, my generation
Speaker 11: is concerned. We are upset. It's not because of anti Semitism.
Speaker 11: It is not because we you know, dislike people, because
Speaker 11: of their race, or their beliefs or their creed. It
Speaker 11: is simply like, this is what we're focusing on. Like
Speaker 11: at the end of the day, I think I and
Speaker 11: so much of my generation is just tired of it,
Speaker 11: Like I want to focus on American issues.
Speaker 2: So that's Brett Cooper, formerly with Daily Wire, basically coming
Speaker 2: out of the closet is a great bat which for
Speaker 2: those that don't know, is you know female Nick funt
Speaker 2: is fan.
Speaker 3: No, she's not a full on graper.
Speaker 2: But I just think that it's a good indication that
Speaker 2: Nick Fuontes is not a standalone If you're still not convinced,
Speaker 2: which you ought to if you watch this, you already know.
Speaker 3: I don't need to make this point.
Speaker 2: But for those that are watching me for the first
Speaker 2: time right now, and you're going like, I think Nick
Speaker 2: Fuontes is just this anomaly and that this is not
Speaker 2: the energy of the youth in this country.
Speaker 1: Wrong.
Speaker 3: You couldn't be more wrong.
Speaker 2: Bret Cooper word for the Daily Wire, for God's sake,
Speaker 2: and she's saying I have serious concern about the amount
Speaker 2: of influence that Israel has over our political system. Now
Speaker 2: she's still watering it down and doing it kind of
Speaker 2: a basic bitch. Wait, no disrespect, You're an adorable little
Speaker 2: lady trying to be mean. I'm just saying it's a
Speaker 2: pretty basic take. It's like, no, we're just we don't
Speaker 2: like it because we can't afford a house, and we're like,
Speaker 2: why are we sending one the Israel. It's like that
Speaker 2: is about as basic a critique as you could possibly levy.
Speaker 3: But I'm glad that you're at least willing to do it. Anyways.
Speaker 2: Point being is that this is a title wave, like,
Speaker 2: you're not gonna stop it.
Speaker 3: It's a tsunami. It's coming.
Speaker 2: See that right behind me. It's a tsunami. It's a bruin,
Speaker 2: and you're not gonna stop it. And if you think, okay,
Speaker 2: well we can silence sneak O Nick flint is, maybe
Speaker 2: we silence Candace, maybe silence Ian Carroll, maybe Tucker cross
Speaker 2: and or Clinter, you know, we can silence all these people.
Speaker 2: It's like, all right, we're gonna silence Brett Cooper too.
Speaker 2: It's like, now you're talking about silencing everybody. And my
Speaker 2: initial thought was like, oh, that's not possible. And then
Speaker 2: Tucker said this to THEO.
Speaker 1: The problem is going to be YouTube. Oh does YouTube
Speaker 1: stay open or not? If there's some active violence in
Speaker 1: the United States, that can be used as a pretext
Speaker 1: in the same way that January six was used as
Speaker 1: a pretext to shut down on these people. They'll kick
Speaker 1: people off. My fear is that people that there will
Speaker 1: be a crackdown on YouTube. And at that point, you know,
Speaker 1: that's a big that would be a true disaster for
Speaker 1: the country if they I agree. So, if there's an
Speaker 1: act of violence, whether it's organic or not, because some
Speaker 1: of them are not organic. Sorry, that's a fact, a
Speaker 1: proven fact. It's not crazy to imagine. Then that could
Speaker 1: be used to tie people whose opinions are unpopular with
Speaker 1: certain groups. Those people need to be off YouTube, And
Speaker 1: all of a sudd there's an emergency meeting with under
Speaker 1: Pashai at Google and it's like, I'm sorry, you cannot
Speaker 1: have purveyors of hate like Candice Owens and me or
Speaker 1: you you can't have them there. These people died because
Speaker 1: these podcasters said hateful things. You have to take them off.
Speaker 2: I know a lot of people's initial reaction is going
Speaker 2: to be like, ah, that seems pretty far fetched. And
Speaker 2: you look at Alex Jones and you're like, m is
Speaker 2: it is it that far fetched? Basically, he was held
Speaker 2: liable up to a billion dollars in fines. A listener
Speaker 2: of us goes out and does something bad, and then
Speaker 2: you're like, Okay, well, are we even sure that they
Speaker 2: were a listener of ours? Because like, wouldn't it be
Speaker 2: the easiest thing in the world to have some patsy
Speaker 2: go out do something crazy violent and then just have
Speaker 2: a fictitious social media history that says, oh what media
Speaker 2: were they watching?
Speaker 3: Oh a big fan of liberty lockdown. It's like, ah, fuck,
Speaker 3: I'm just.
Speaker 2: Saying, like all I ever say is I want like truth, justice, peace, prosperity, autonomy, sovereignty.
Speaker 2: Like these are all messages that are not they shouldn't
Speaker 2: be controversial, and they're certainly not, you know, radical to
Speaker 2: the point of like I'm endorsing violence. But yet I
Speaker 2: think Tucker's right that if some some fan of his
Speaker 2: or Candice or whatever were to go out and do
Speaker 2: something stupid, that yeah, that could be a catalyst. It
Speaker 2: gave me pause for a second, that's for sure.
Speaker 12: Illiberalism on the left that came from the fringe into
Speaker 12: the mainstream of the Democratic Party began as a fringe
Speaker 12: online movement that a lot of Democrats and a lot
Speaker 12: of Liberals waved away because it was just some crazy
Speaker 12: influencers online. And woe to the people that still are
Speaker 12: telling themselves that and still believe that the things that
Speaker 12: Candice Owens and Tucker Carlson are saying will not make
Speaker 12: an impact on the right, because they will.
Speaker 1: Everything about that is just so amazing to me. Takes
Speaker 1: a lot of balls for Barry Weiss, who acts openly
Speaker 1: on behalf of a foreign country. Her only concerns are
Speaker 1: not American concerns. They pertain to the fortunes of foreign country.
Speaker 1: Do they really? Oh?
Speaker 2: Yes, accusation via projection. This is what happens constantly. But
Speaker 2: Tucker did not connect the dots between those two clips,
Speaker 2: So I'm going to do it for him. What was
Speaker 2: Barry actually saying there? She's saying that basically, the radicalization
Speaker 2: on the left started as a fringe movement with fringe influencers,
Speaker 2: and then it basically it wasn't crushed early enough, and
Speaker 2: then it took over the entire Democratic Party. Well, she's
Speaker 2: now the top dog over at CBS right, and she's
Speaker 2: basically doing these you know, sit downs with Shapiro and others,
Speaker 2: and what are they talking about. They are basically talking
Speaker 2: about how to not just win the narrative battle when
Speaker 2: it comes to defending a foreign government, as she accuses
Speaker 2: people like me as being anti American, which is insulting,
Speaker 2: uh and false. She's also basically like they're angling for
Speaker 2: full conquest. They're angling to acquire as they did with TikTok.
Speaker 2: This is Ellison and then Ellison's son with CBS, and
Speaker 2: now she's the top dog at CBS.
Speaker 3: It's like, yeah, what do.
Speaker 2: You see the game? We see the game here. I
Speaker 2: know it's anti's a mantic to say it, but like
Speaker 2: it's obviously what's happening, Like once they own all of
Speaker 2: those large media enterprises, Like do you expect people like
Speaker 2: Tucker or Candas or anyone like me to be allowed
Speaker 2: to speak? Like, no, that's the game. That's the angle.
Speaker 2: You basically corner the market and then you suppress the
Speaker 2: distant voices and then you win.
Speaker 3: Like that's the game plan. It's obviously the game.
Speaker 2: I don't necessarily think it'll work because there are so
Speaker 2: many alternative platforms, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't
Speaker 2: call it out and we shouldn't fight back.
Speaker 3: But those two.
Speaker 2: Things that he's saying there really do tie together beautifully,
Speaker 2: because that is the whole mindset behind the Zionists control stuff,
Speaker 2: is like, that's the plan is to suppress sensor deep platform.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I think Candice Owan's and all of us
Speaker 2: are in jeopardy. And I just want to really encourage
Speaker 2: you guys to not permit it, to basically just make
Speaker 2: it such a financial catastrophe for every platform that would
Speaker 2: have the audacity to try and get rid of all
Speaker 2: of those voices that I've listed off, it has to
Speaker 2: be so painful that no matter the pressure from the government,
Speaker 2: that they won't do it. The problem is is that
Speaker 2: most of these platforms were started by Inqutel, and I
Speaker 2: don't know what kind of autonomy they even really have
Speaker 2: or a real interest in profitability, Like I'm not sure.
Speaker 2: So it's just going to come down to like public
Speaker 2: outcry and can we basically make our voices loud enough
Speaker 2: that they back down.
Speaker 3: Let's hope.
Speaker 1: So Epstein was murdered in prison, Okay, I know a
Speaker 1: lot about it. I'm not just throwing that out there.
Speaker 1: Epstein was murdered in prison. Well, they put him with
Speaker 1: a cell mate that was kind of a crazy like
Speaker 1: former police officer, right, Yeah, a former police officer killed
Speaker 1: a number of drug dealers. I'm not saying that guy
Speaker 1: did it, but I'm saying, well, I asked Bureau of
Speaker 1: Prisons because I learned all the stuff about because I
Speaker 1: know Epstein's brother Mark. The guy called me like a
Speaker 1: week after his brother was killed. Mark did.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The bottom line is Jeff Epstein was murdered in federal
Speaker 1: lockup in Manhattan, in the secure unit. I think there
Speaker 1: were only sixteen men on the unit, and I think
Speaker 1: only fourteen there that I may have that's slightly wrong,
Speaker 1: but it's very small, and it's the most secure federal
Speaker 1: lockup in the United States, and he got murdered in it.
Speaker 1: So that raises all kinds of obvious questions like who
Speaker 1: is the power to do that?
Speaker 2: And doesn't that just kind of t everything together in
Speaker 2: a nice, tidy little bow. It's like, that's exactly the
Speaker 2: problem with all this that. Yeah, corruption is a problem,
Speaker 2: no doubt about it. But there is one particular type
Speaker 2: of corruption that originates from one particular arena of the
Speaker 2: planet that seems to go completely unaddressed. Let's just break
Speaker 2: it down.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: First off, Jonathan Pollard just met with Mike Huckabee, the
Speaker 2: United States ambassador to Israel under Donald Trump. And Jonathan
Speaker 2: Pollard is a convicted spy and trader against the United
Speaker 2: States of America, and our ambassador met with him and
Speaker 2: he was not fired for doing that. Also, Jonathan Pollard,
Speaker 2: when he was released, was flown on the Adolson's private
Speaker 2: jet back to Tel Aviv. The Adelson's happened to be
Speaker 2: the largest donor to the current President of the United States,
Speaker 2: Donald Trump. Okay, that's true. Also, Jeffrey Epstein was almost certainly,
Speaker 2: I'll leave one percent possibility for me being wrong here,
Speaker 2: almost certainly murdered in federal lockup. Also, the Epstein files
Speaker 2: were going to be released, then they were released but
Speaker 2: there was nothing new, and then they were a Democrat fraud.
Speaker 2: And then they were released, but only after MTG sacrificed
Speaker 2: to a political career on it, and Thomas Massey faces
Speaker 2: a twenty two million dollars primary boundy for requiring it.
Speaker 2: And then they finally are going to release them, but
Speaker 2: then they say that they're probably going to be redacted
Speaker 2: because of national security issues, which you ought to be
Speaker 2: asking yourself why in the fuck is a child trafficking ring.
Speaker 3: A national security issue?
Speaker 2: Well, then you understand the nature of the backdrop of
Speaker 2: the Epstein operation, and then you're like, waitis Laane Maxwell,
Speaker 2: Robert Maxwell. I'm not going to do the entire draw
Speaker 2: down of I'm not going to do the full Glen
Speaker 2: Beck chalkboard for you, but I think we all know
Speaker 2: what I'm saying here. These are all issues that all
Speaker 2: surround a four or in government that is not our own,
Speaker 2: that we cannot get justice for. And then you tie
Speaker 2: that back to all of the chicanery the fuckery when
Speaker 2: it comes to Charlie Kirk's assassination, and everybody is asking
Speaker 2: the same damn question because we're not idiots, because we
Speaker 2: all see the pattern that there are things that we
Speaker 2: can get justice for or over or about, and there
Speaker 2: are things that we know we cannot. And it's like
Speaker 2: almost every time it's a thing we cannot get justice for,
Speaker 2: it's a thing that has to do with Israel, just
Speaker 2: going to say it, and that paradigm cannot persist. I
Speaker 2: refuse to allow it, And as an American, I feel
Speaker 2: like it's incumbent upon all of us to say the
Speaker 2: same thing. And for the record, let me add one
Speaker 2: more bizarre instance of this, the assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Yeah,
Speaker 2: butler pa real interesting. Another lone wolf. Another no motive,
Speaker 2: no social media, no background, no nothing. But then actually
Speaker 2: there is a tremuous amount of social media about it. Oh,
Speaker 2: let me add one more thing.
Speaker 3: Nine to eleven. All right, I'm gonna end there.
Speaker 2: Before I get myself you know, nuked. I just ah, man,
Speaker 2: I'm so I'm so frustrated. It takes everything in me
Speaker 2: not to just scream or not scream, but like, just
Speaker 2: yell these points at you. So I decided to deliver
Speaker 2: them very calmly. But just I just want you to
Speaker 2: be aware that beneath the calm visage, the calm demeanor,
Speaker 2: is seething rage. I'm so pissed. So yeah, this is
Speaker 2: why we demand answers. This is why we demand justice,
Speaker 2: This is why we demand better. This is why we
Speaker 2: don't shut up. This is why we don't run away,
Speaker 2: This is why we aren't afraid. This is why we
Speaker 2: don't just accept your dominance over us anymore. Because we
Speaker 2: are Americans. We are free fucking men, we're free people,
Speaker 2: and you can't break our spirit and you will not.
Speaker 2: If you enjoyed this episode, please do it the like button,
Speaker 2: subscribe and share it around. If you want to get cozy,
Speaker 2: go to Mike Clint Dell MyPillow dot com. Use promo
Speaker 2: code lockdown, and I don't know if i'll catch you tomorrow.
Speaker 2: I can't do an episode every day, it's too exhausting.
Speaker 2: But I hope you guys enjoyed the back to backs.
Speaker 3: And if you want to.
Speaker 2: Thank me for doing back to back episodes, which I
Speaker 2: never do, just share the show around. That's all I ask.
Speaker 2: Share the show around. Oh and I got a one
Speaker 2: quick note. People keep asking me for merch. It keeps
Speaker 2: saying this is a FA foh shit, you got to
Speaker 2: make sure it's dude or hats or whatever, and I'm like, well,
Speaker 2: first off, trademark, I'm declaring it here a FA fo
Speaker 2: America first and fucking only trademark. Clint Russell.
Speaker 3: I came up with it. It's mine. You can't have it.
Speaker 3: But I don't have a merch guide.
Speaker 2: So if anybody's got context for me on a merch
Speaker 2: company that you think I should use, please do drop
Speaker 2: that in the comments and i'll produce some dope stuff
Speaker 2: for you guys. People also wanted team not this or
Speaker 2: not Team not That from the outro on the last episode.
Speaker 2: So yeah, Team not That in a fa FO trademark
Speaker 2: Clint Russell, My shit, you can't have.
Speaker 3: It all right, guys. See, so pease subscribe to Liberty Lockdown.
Speaker 3: Great podcast. Clint is Tight.