Speaker 1: Welcome to another episode of the Chicks on the Right program.
We have been very, very anxious to talk to our
guest today, Josh Hammer, who is the host of The
Josh Hammer Show. He is the author of a new book,
Israel and Civilization out now. He is senior editor at
Large for Newsweek, and our audience may recognize Josh Hammer's name.
We've mentioned it a few times during our show because
Candice Owens recently used all kinds of colorful language to
describe him, including let me see if I get them all,
subhuman filth.
Speaker 2: Psychopath, deeply disturbed.
Speaker 1: And now there is this new drama regarding a word
that you used in your recent Daily Mail article about
Tucker Carlson, which we want to get to.
Speaker 2: But we want to backtrack a little bit.
Speaker 1: And get some history, specifically starting with your relationship with
Charlie Kirk and how all of this drama came to be.
So can you tell us how you met and how
you knew him?
Speaker 3: Sure? So thanks for having me. First of all, I'm
a big fan of the show. So you know when
I joined Newsweek as the opinion editor, so they hired me.
I previously had worked for The Daily Wire, I've been
a pretty public facing conservative for my entire adult life.
I've literally never been on the left. I mean I was.
I was actually that guy in middle school in high
school who's basically arguing against like twenty five lib classmates
on like Bush era water boarding policies at one tom Obay,
I mean that was literally me. So I've been life
al right there. Yeah. But after, you know, after dailhi Wire,
Newsweek hired me as a conservative to run their op
ed page, to run throughun the opinimate, because they wanted
a conservative to run the op ed page for the
very simple reason that liberals will contribute op as regardless,
but conservatives definitely won't do it unless they know it's
a hospitable location. So I say all that for contest,
because one of the conservative columnists I inherited a Newsweek
was Charlie kirk and Charlie was one of our conservative
columnists at Newsweek. So I got to know Charlie and
also his his manager, his intermediary Andrew Covid, who I
think the world has now gone to know because Andrew
is is executive producer of the Charliekirrek Shon has been
the most frequent guest host of the Charlie Kirk Show
since the Tratic assassination. So I got to know Charlie
and Andrew quite well initially through that. Charlie first invited
me to speak at a Tourney Point conference about a
year after I started at Newsleader, so this would have
been twenty twenty one, at this two National summit in Tampa.
I started going on on his show as a guest,
even before my own show launched. We kind of just
struck up a natural chord. I am a religious Jew,
he is a religious Christian. We have a, you know,
some obvious theological difference to decide. We have a very
generally similar worldview, which is that the Western civilization is
the offspring of the Bible, and the Biblical inheritance of
that is the inheritance of both Jews and Christians alike.
And especially over the last year or two of his life,
as Charlie started to get really really concerned with this
growing sentiment of not just anti Semitism that's certainly part
of it, but this bizarre form of right of center
thought or cop and terry that seems anti American, frankly
anti American, anti Western, anti Bible, I mean, like all
the good things that I stand for that Charlie stood
for and sover so he became very concerned and he
formed this, this small WhatsApp chat which has become the
source of some speculation, shall we say, Charlie literally say
he literally called this WhatsApp chat saving civilization for the
very simple reason that he intended to save civilization. And
he saw the pillars of that as Judaism, Christianity, the Bible,
the United States, etc. Are there. So I got We
talked virtually every day for the final year, year and
a half of his life, at least in this group chat,
if if not privately. Most recently, I saw him in
July at the Turning Point USA student summit in Tampa,
where I debated Dave Smith for the second time. That
tragically ends up being Charlie Kirk's final event that he
ever moderated at a Turning Point USA conference, which is
obviously horrific in hindsight. Then I saw I saw him
about three weeks give or take after that, at another
event that's become the source of some sort of conspiracy.
This this was the Hampton's Retreat, This was the Turnpoint
USA Hampton's retreat, the one where Bill Ackman tended my
good friend Seth Dill and the Babylon b I was there.
That was the last time I saw Charlie in person,
because that was about about a month before the horrific assassination.
So that's that's kind of the whole story there.
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, go ahead, I mean here, no, I was
just going to say, you know, you talk about how
there's a rise in anti Semitism, I also think that
there's been a rise in Islamism, you know, and that's
and that concerns me because people it's almost as if
people can't see what's happening in Europe, and I don't
understand why they can't see it. And we've been doing
this for the better part of eighteen years. So we're
old and so we and when I say old, it's
when you're older, you know, because you're you're a young guy.
I mean, not to diminish like because you're I mean
you are you have done some stuff. I mean you're
very accomplished, but you're you know, we've been in this
space for a long time. To see that like it is,
it is is very concerning. When we do see the
anti Semitism, but we also do see a rise of
the Islamism, which is, you know, you think that people
would look at other places and go, that's probably not
a good idea based on what I'm seeing happening over
there not being a good idea, so we don't want
it to happen here. And so there's a mix of
things going on, and I see like this huge fracture
happening in the party because we've always been like, you know,
we're really bad at rallying as a you know, as conservatives,
we're bad at coming together because we're very individualistic, you know,
we like to just we don't like to go along
to get along. But we've you know, complained about that
over the past better part of twenty years, how we're
not good ralliers. And I feel like in twenty twenty four,
I finally feel like we got to a place where
we're like, Okay, I think we're getting there, so it's
gonna be great. We're starting to like gain some momentum.
And then it was like wah wah, wah, wah wah,
and here we are. We're back again. I think, worse
than ever, Josh, because I feel like there's this massive
fracture happening, and I'm legit terrified of it because I
think it's the worst we've ever seen in the better
part of two decades.
Speaker 5: What are your thoughts on that.
Speaker 3: Well, there's lots of umpact there. Look, yeah, I mean,
on the one hand, the American rights the American conservative
movement has had plenty of policy and intellectual and philosophical
disagreements since that modern movement. You know, the tale that
is told about the modern consert movement typically goes back
to the nineteen fifties with the rise of National Review
and Bill Buckley and the Heritage Foundation. So I mean,
you know, going back to those early post World War
Two debates, there have been all sorts of philosophical disagreements
between the Cold War era interventionists and the old school
you know, Taft style isolationists. On the one hand, you
have the libertarians that the lase a fair fundamentalist versus
kind of the social conservatives. So these disagreements to an extent,
you know, are somewhat endemic for better or for worse,
to the American you know, extent is actually not a
bad thing, right, because you do want a healthy you
want to you want a healthy intellectual agree vibrancy. The
problem is that that's not what we're seeing.
Speaker 5: The problem is that I agree, Yeah.
Speaker 3: The problem is that we're What we're seeing right now
is not that you know this. This is this is
not you know, too too well read, well informed, you know, amicable,
amicably disagreeing conservatives, you know, having a policy disagreement about
you know, the Cuban missile crisis, or you know what
the tax rate should be or this there. No, I mean,
what you're seeing is is the rise of a strand
of people who think of themselves as being on the right,
and occasionally talk of themselves as being on the right.
But as I was saying, I mean, I mean seem
to not not not just be anti Semitic, and many
ways they're actually anti Christian. I mean, look at what
look at what Tucker Carlson said on his show to
Nick Flindes. He said that he detests no one more
I think on earth. I think I could wrong. I
want to even about it. You're absolutely right, yeah, he said,
he said he did tests no one more on Earth
than Christian Zionists. And that's that's a that's a pretty
shocking statement. I mean, that is a lot of people
he hates Charlie. It's literally Charlie. I mean literally to
a t Charlie. Charlie posts a photo of himself shortly
after October seventh of him praying at the Western Wall
in Jerusalem wearing the kipa, the Jewish skull cap, literally
quoting Genesis chapter twelve, verse three, one of the most
cited verses of the Bible for Christian Zionists, in partial
lekcla cloud, which we're actually gonna read in syndegat this Shabbad.
It's kind of funny timing.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 3: And this is this is a famous line where it says,
I shall bless those who bless you, I shall curse
those who curse you. You know, I mean that was
Charlie's m O. I mean, he was a literal Christian
zions So Tucker is bashing Charlie. He's also bashing a plurality,
at least of the of the Maga coalition, of the
Republican voting base. There and these ceaseless attacks on not
just the tiny minority that are US Jews, but also
this this broader majority that are proud Christians, proud patriotic,
constitutional as Americans, you know, just good old fashioned people
of buying for the right. On the and on the
other hand, you have you know, I mean Tucker you mentioned,
you mentioned Islamism. You know, Tucker had a really bizarre
video a few months ago where he's offering apologia on
behalf of Shria law. He has this video, We're talking
about Riad, Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, u as like these
are beautiful looking cities. I mean, how bad can shari
a Law be? On the on the other hand, he's
he's getting a puff interview to the president of Iran,
to the a mirror of Katar. I mean, I mean,
what is what is going on here? I mean, you know,
are we as Charlie would have played it? Are we
on team civilization? Or are we not?
Speaker 5: I mean, yeah, so are you?
Speaker 1: I mean with the with the chat that you talked about,
and you obviously don't you don't have to disclose who
else is.
Speaker 2: Involved other than you and and now Andrew and.
Speaker 1: Whoever else do you talk to to the to him
and to the others at TPUSA about, you know, because
there's a lot of people right now calling for TPUSA
to essentially distance themselves from Tucker.
Speaker 2: Are you do you believe that they should have they?
Speaker 1: Are they aware of how much chatter there is about
how different Tucker is from what Charlie stood for and
whether or not that harms the TPUSA brand.
Speaker 3: Charlie was an adamant, adamant foe of Nick Flentes. No
one in America did more to sideline Nick Flentes and
that whole movement than Charlie Kirk, literally, no one more.
There's a nice, single person who did more to ostracize
flent This than Charlie. I mean, and there's.
Speaker 4: Video proof of it, Josh, Like you can see where
he hated the ideology of this guy. And there's you
can I mean, if people don't believe it, you can
see it with your own eyes. You can watch him
say that. You can see him visibly irritated and agitated
and disgusted at these people.
Speaker 3: Right, I mean, flind This would literally show up physically
to these conferences to troll turning points. They need to
try to let him attend. He caused personal hell or
Charlie and is now widow Erica. And the difference is
that Charlie, like many of us in the space New
Tucker for a very long time, and he had years
and years of very positive experiences with Tucker, of him
speaking the conferences back when he was slightly more normal,
when he was on Fox News and so forth there,
and he just never got to the point where he
saw Tucker Carlson Nick flintes as being in the same camp.
And I do think that he would have been shocked.
That he would have been shocked if he had seen
that a month and a half after his death, that
Tucker would bring on the flent As for what can
only be described as a very friendly interview, a very
friendly interview there. But yes, I mean the folks in
you know, Charlie and the folks in his orbit were
certainly aware that that I was not a fan of
the direction that Tucker Carlson had taken. That I think
a lot of folks were not a fan of the
direction Tucker Carlson had taken. But there were just there
were all these years of very pleasant personal interactions that
I think kind of just led him to say, no,
you know, it can't be right. I mean, it just
can't be. It can't be the case that Tucker is,
you know, indistinguishable from flent is there or he's pedaling
a slightly softer, more toned down, more faculty lounge esque
version of of of the flentes bile and filth. So
you know, that was one thing that that we disagreed about.
But here's where I say that, here's what we'll say
that Charlie and I very much agree we'd read very
strong gun. Two things. One a lot of things to
be clear, but two things for present purposes. One is
that genuine, actual Indi Semitism, like not like a disagreement
about like foreign eight daser, but like literal, like you know,
actual old school blood level anti semitism has no place
on the right period, full stop, end of story. There
is an infinite supply of internet clips available for Charlie
saying exactly that, including in my debate against Dave Smith
on the Stage Attorney Point just in July. The other
thing that I think is even more relevant, possibly that
Charlie stood for that I agree with as well, is
that when it comes to platforming decisions, who were going
to choose a platform and a conference overth there lines
at some point have to be drawn. Again, Charlie keeping
out Flints was like the literal embodiment of that. Now,
he and I disagreed at times, as I'm sure he
disagreed with any number of his other friends and colleagues
and whatever. We all have our own ideas as to
where exactly to draw the line every instance there. But
the point is that lines must be drawn, and to
simply draw a line is not an act of cancelation
is a basically it is. It is one an editorial judgment.
I mean, for instance, a pro life organization would obviously
not platform a pro abortion speak gerth or conference, So
it's one. It's just an editorial judgment too. It's also
just like a literal like time of how many minutes
of the day. I mean, a conference can't go on
for life. You have a limited time there, limited slots.
It's a scarcity of resources thing too. So he strongly
agreed on lines being drawn for platforming, and I very
much agree with that as well, certainly.
Speaker 4: Yeah, And I think and it's the mainstreaming that concerns
me too, Yeah, because since that line has not been drawn,
and you've got people like Tucker interviewing this guy, which
the whole groyper gotta hate that word, the whole Groyper
movement like these. You know, now he's getting a platform,
so people can say, you know, people like talking to
me like, well, I mean it's just you know, it's
free speech.
Speaker 5: I'm just hearing what he has to say. You know,
I'm paraphrasing.
Speaker 4: Of course, all these people are like, what's the big deal,
just hearing what they have to say. But when you
give him a platform, you're gonna have all these really
super right wing people that are awful, like the far
far right wing that are just terrible, terrible white nationalists.
When I say white nationalists, I'm talking about like white
the legit white supremacist, anti Semitic, horrible people that are.
Speaker 5: Like, oh yeah, I really like this guy.
Speaker 2: He sounds really nice because there's been no pushback.
Speaker 3: Just just real quick, not to cut you off, but
you know, I mean, fun, this is obviously a literal holocaust,
and I I mean there was a I mean, there
was an infamous clip of the cookies. Okay, yep. But
he's also like a scathing racist. I mean he's he's
he's mocked JD. Vans for marrying his wife Usha because
she's Indian. I've met Usha before. She's a wonderful, wonderful,
amazing accomplished.
Speaker 4: He's anti all immigration, I mean, like we are anti
illegal immigration obviously, but he doesn't like any immigration, which
Mack's parents like, I mean that, but.
Speaker 3: Also just like literally an anti black, anti Indian, like like,
you're profoundly like misogynous, anti woman. I mean this, It's
a bad human being. Really didn't know how to say it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely what I'm curious because you mentioned j D
and Usha and you probably saw the the event, the
TPUSA event at ole Miss last night. I've seen a
lot of interesting takes from very pro Israel Jewish people
who are dissatisfied with how JD. Vance answered some of
the questions that related to Israel and to this, you know,
this ridiculous idea that Bibiata who controls Donald Trump, or
Israel controls Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: But there was that one question.
Speaker 1: In particular where the student asked about the ethnic genocide
in Gaza and this this I can't remember how he
phrased it, but it was something to the extent about
there's inability for Judaism and Christianity to coexist well, and
so why basically, why is the United States paying any
mind to Israel, and I thought JD's answer was tactful
and diplomatic and politically fine, and I love him. I
think he's a phenomenal potential choice for twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 2: But I am seeing.
Speaker 1: A lot of folks who I was surprised to see,
who are very disappointed and disillusioned by the way that
he answered that question.
Speaker 5: What was your take?
Speaker 3: Let me first address part of that person's that Interlockier's question,
then I'll come back to JD. So part of that question,
as you correctly summarized, it was his notion that jude
has been Christianity cannot cannot co exist. So this is
a topic that I address a great length actually in
my book Israel and Civilization, because no one can understand
the story of the United States of America. Literally, no
one can understand this country without understanding just how much
are very pious, very devout Christian founders were inspired by
the Hebrew Bible, by the Old Testament, by the Jewish people,
and Jewish ethical, legal, political and norms. I mean, what's
inscribed on the liberty bell in Philadelphia. You know, it's
not Aristotle in Nicol mcke and ethics, it's not a
speech from Cicero on the for of the Roman Senate.
It's literally the book of Leviticus. I mean, like as
old Testament as it gets. It's Leviticus, chapter twenty five,
verse ten. This this exhortation to spread liberty throughout the
land into all the inhabitants thereop and Benjamin Franklin, one
of the National Seal of the United States, to literally
be Moses crossing the Red Sea with the Israelites trailing behind.
You know, John Adams, our second president and a very
devout Christian himself. Famously one says that it's his contention
that no people in the history of mankind has done
more to civilize the masses than the Hebrew people because
as they introduced to the world the concept of monotheism.
So you know, this notion that the Jews and Christians
can't get along is completely belied by the American founding
and by nearly two and a half centuries now of
the American stories. So I just wanted to kind of
get that end there. But look, when it comes to JD.
Evans in particular, my Jewish friends are something my Jewish
friends on the right. To be clear, I don't really
have a whole lot of friends on left in general
these days, but I have something on the top. But
my Jewish friends on the right are somewhat divided when
it comes to Jdvans. I've personally known JD for some
years now, sin as well, before he was Sendinger advanced.
I think we met at the first National Consertism Conference,
the first nat con way back in DC and twenty nineteen.
You know, we were following each other back when we
just had I don't know, ten twenty thousand Twitter followers
or whatever. There. I've gotten dinner and drank beers with
him and his wife Lucia. So I personally like the
guy very much. I think very highly of him. It's
definitely concerning that Tucker Carlson's son Buckley is in his offe.
I mean, I'm not going to mince words and pretend
that that is just something to glance over it. It's
definitely a potential red flag. On the other hand, you know,
one of my close law school friends is in that office,
the chief of staff of a vice president of Vance.
Is these all public information? He is a proud jew.
Another friend of mine named Jacob recis so I mean
this notion that Jade Vance is some you know, crypto
groper anti semi I think is nuts and and and
there's really no evidence to bat that up. I mean,
could he have handled that question or something else slightly differently? Look,
there was one question kind of implying, you know that
like Israel and the Jews control American foreign policy, and
his answer is basically like, well, obviously they don't control
of this president. Look, if I'm being like, if I'm
really nitpicking, like a better answer would have been, I
reject the premise of the question.
Speaker 2: I mean exactly exactly right.
Speaker 3: But I'm nitpicking a little bit here, Okay. I mean,
as someone who has done these events before, when you're
in like that moment, you don't always say like, exactly
the best thing there. So I mean, I mean he
overall did a perfectly fine job. I am not particularly
worried that that jd Vance is a is a crypto groeper.
I will say this though, I will say this, despite
my you know, personal fondness towards me and everything, Tucker
is a massive problem. Okay, And at some point the
paling around with Tucker Carlson, I think is is not
going to be an issue not just for Jews like me,
but is increase becoming a politically untenable albatross in general,
like like literally just for the American people. I mean,
as we just discussed Tucker Carlson, who I guess the
Vice President still considers a friend, Tucker was just calling
all Christian Zionists essentially scum of the earth. I mean,
that is that is a lot of Trump Vance's own voters.
So this is this is rapidly becoming unsustainable and politically untenable.
And I hope and pray that JD. Vance ultimately takes
the rights and prudent course of action there. I think
he will afford it's.
Speaker 4: Worth, and I think it's going to be a huge
problem in the next election, which he will ultimately be
a big part of. Obviously he's going to be the
guy running for president, we think, I think, so, I mean,
what do you think will happen if I mean if
he runs and if he's got because this is going
to be looming this whole You're you are a Zionist.
You know, this is what we get this all the
time on our socials. I hate that, I don't know,
like the word zionist to me, I have never heard
that word so much as I have in the past
two years, you know what I mean, Like I just
like I said, we've been doing this for a long time.
Speaker 5: It's like that and the word genocide.
Speaker 4: I feel like I've heard those two words more in
the past two years.
Speaker 5: Then it's insane.
Speaker 3: But well, zionis in theory, but is a very simple
and quite beautiful concept. I mean it is.
Speaker 5: I mean, it's but they've but they've made it bad.
Speaker 3: Correct, They've bastardized it, They've made it a pejorative. But
I mean literally, the first five books of the Bible,
what we call it Torah, what Christians just know as
the Pentaeia, the first five books there, I mean, I
would argue it's essentially a Zionist document, really, I mean,
I mean, I mean a large part of the story
is is the Jewish people finding their way to the
land of Israel. I mean, that's a large part of
the story of the first five books of the Bible there.
That seems pretty Zionis to me. So it's not particularly
shocking concept. But you're totally right. The left has highjacked
this word, as they have.
Speaker 4: Somebody and some of the right I mean, I'm delighted
to be called a Desigonist.
Speaker 5: I'm fine with that. I'm happy with that, delighted.
Speaker 4: But what really bothers me is that like on our
especially like Instagram, because I run our Instagram, you would
not believe the amount of conservatives that come out there
and they're like, use Zionist, and they say it in
such a derogatory manner, and then they'll be like, you
got your seven thousand.
Speaker 5: Dollars, you get this. They'll accuse us of being paid.
Speaker 4: Which I would be delighted to be paid by Israel,
too happy to take a check to do it. But
I mean saying the thing, we will always support Israel.
We're happy to take a check. I mean, if anybody's listening.
But this is the thing is that we get, we
get so you know, hit for that, like people get,
they just get.
Speaker 5: They beat up on us for that.
Speaker 4: I'm like, this is the weirdest place to be right
now as a conservative pundit who is a Christian Zionist.
I guess that's what I am. I've just always been
a Christian who supports the Jews. I guess I love
Jewish people and I love so I don't it's just
a bizarre place to be. And so I'm I feel
like this is going to be a place of fracture
in the next election like we've never seen before. Because
when you mentioned the Tucker thing, and when you when
you mention and you, you know, bring up the fact
that he is basically saying that we are scum of
the earth, that's going to be a problem. Because he is,
He's very influential. That's going to be an issue, I believe.
Speaker 3: Look, I wish that you know, it's kind of funny
because a lot of the a lot of the anti
Israel folks say, oh, you know, like I'm a flo
with Israel, But I wish we never talked about it.
Basically that we talked. We talked about it far less.
Guess what, I literally agree with that, I literally agree
that we talked about it far less. In fact, when
I started, when I start to write the draft proposal
for my long overdue first book two and a half
years ago, now, it had nothing to do with this.
It was a totally unrelated book about like you know,
generally kind of you know, my vision for conservative governance
and you know, domestic policy, etc. There And the only
reason that I switched gears entirely was not necessarily October seventh,
but the world's reaction to October seventh, I was like,
oh God, I mean, like, this is truly insane. I've
got a trifle back there. And personally, you know, the
reason that I've spoken at a lot of more about
this issue probably over the past two years, is just
due to that, due to the fact that there was
just so much animus and so much hatred. So, you know,
I I can only speak for myself, but I don't
feel like I am doing the over talking. I feel
I feel like the other side is doing like the
over talking, and we're kind of playing defense over here, Franklin.
So but you know, it saddens me certainly that this
issue has become so divisive in American politics in general. Look,
I mean, on the other hand, I don't want to
over exaggerate, right, So even at that Turning Point USA
conference in July, the one of where I debated Dave Smith,
you know, Charlie his team did a poll of the
whole audience roughly four thousand people, give or take. They're
probably younger folks there, but many activists and seventy three
percent called themselves pro Israel for whatever it's worth. Now, Okay,
now we can quibble and say that seventy three percent
probably would have been ninety percent a decade ago, which
it probably would have been, but that's still that's still
a healthy, a healthy majority. And you know the twenty
seven percent, the ones who are not maybe are a
little more vulgar, and crews such as this interlock yader
of J. D. Evans is at the Oxford, Mississippi event
where he's talking about ethnic cleansing there, and no doubt
about it that we have a bit of a problem
when it comes to Flentes and and that whole that
whole crew, that whole crowd more more generally there, but
you know, overall when it comes to these specific issues,
because look, I mean, in the American political valance, we're
where you stand on the Jews is just a proxy
of where you stand on religion in the Biblical inheritance
more generally, which is ultimately procsy for where you stand
really on America. So I mean, the rights is still
a much healthier place on these issues than the left,
which is like you know, decades and decades decades gone.
So I don't want to overstate just how bad it
has gotten. But it's definitely considerably worse than it was
as recently as like five years ago there, and we
have a lot of work to do.
Speaker 5: Do you.
Speaker 1: I want to just go back to the Candace stuff
for a minute, because there was I know that you
appeared on Aaron Milan's show and talked That was right
after she twisted this tweet of yours about public executions
to make it sound as if you were predicting what
happened to Charlie, even though it was clear to anybody
with like actual brains that you were referring to what
everybody was referring to, which was Arena Zaruska.
Speaker 2: So you had mentioned on that show.
Speaker 1: And we're very curious about this because you do have
a a lot.
Speaker 2: You're a lawyer by trade. Are you still pursuing a lawsuit?
Pretty please? Because, like I just the way that your
the way that your.
Speaker 1: Words get misconstrued, it makes me, It just makes me rage.
Speaker 2: And it's the same thing that's happening with your piece
in the in the Daily in the Daily Manvel today.
Speaker 5: It's right, the utalizing thing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's pure a midigated anti semitism. I mean, there's
no other way to say it. I mean, if someone
who was not wearing a kipa was, you know, tweeting
about the execution of Irena Zutzka's murderer, or or or
talking about you know, neutralizing a political thread whatever I mean,
I mean, no one would even think twice about what
about what he or she meant? So look to answer
your question directly. I I am a lawyer a background.
I got clerkes on a federal Court of Appeals. I've
written piece of constitutional scholarship. I've spoken the top law schools.
I know a thing or two by the First Amendment
and defamation law. So based on all of my own understanding,
based on my own discussions with lawyers there, there absolutely
is a a potentially viable defamation case to be had
against against Candice Owens. I'm not initiating a lawsuit at
this exact time for various reasons that have nothing to
do with the legal strength, which is very strong, but
to kind of tantalize you and leave you a little
bit on the hooks there. The statue of limitations for
a defamation claim in the state of Florida where I
live is two years, So there's plenty of time to
kind of think this through a little more and see
what else she perhaps has to say in the future.
Speaker 5: We would encourage that well.
Speaker 1: And that actually leads to another question that is sort
of lawyery, I guess, for lack of a better word.
She recently slapped Nathan Livingstone who clipped some of her
book club videos and demonstrated like how psych goes she
sounded in those, and she hit him with one of
those like copyright takedown notices. So we talked about this
on our show because I heard the people that were like, well,
clearly that was behind a paywall, so he didn't have
a right to clip it and share it. But then
other folks were saying, that's obviously fair use because he
was providing commentary.
Speaker 2: What what is your take on that?
Speaker 3: So I have no real legal take, to be honest
with you, intellectual property law, copyright, trademark, fair use is
that's just like genuinely not my area, to be honest
with you, so I know very little about it. My
vague impression is is that the paywall is not legally
significant in this case that when you are a figure
of Candi's own as a statue and you're putting content
on the internet, it probably is fair use. But that's
that's my very kind of general, vague instinct. You know,
you know, I feel bad for Nathan Livingstone, who does
a lot of good work when it comes to exposing
you know, Candace and frankly a lot of this you know,
anti Western civilization crap out there. But I don't have
kind of any particular legal expertise in that, to be
honest with you.
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, that's fair, that's fair.
Speaker 1: And then one one other question that goes back to
the group text, another thing that you were taken out
of context for and attack for mercilessly there was you
had explained. I thought, in a way that may perfect
sense that Charlie's comment about inviting Candace to TPUSA advance
on him abandoning the Israel Cause I thought your explanation
made so much sense because you know him, the people
in your chat know him, knew his heart, and.
Speaker 2: Yet she took that and just absolutely ran with it.
Speaker 1: Can you can you just contextualize that conversation.
Speaker 5: A bit more?
Speaker 3: Sure? So this was the day before Charlie's horrific, unconscientable assassination,
you know, to an extent byway, it still feels kind
of surreal, honestly. I mean, I still feel like this
is a nightmare. I'm gonna wake up and it's just
not the case. So the day before, on September ninth,
I guess that would have been Charlie found out that
one of his major donors, who happens to be a
a AH and very pro Israel, was pulling a two
million dollars a year donation out of frustration with the
platform in Tucker Carlson, and you know, maybe more generally
just kind of the way that the orgizators had it.
I don't really know it, but I think it was
probably mostly related to Tucker. Look, two things here can
be true at once. As I said in this post
that you're referring to. On the one hand, no one
has a right to a donation. If you operate a
five O one C three five one C four whatever,
you know, you have to maintain those relations. I mean
to kind of go back to the abortion analogy. If
you are a donor to a pro life organization, then
that pro life organization at its major gallery conference has
a notable like pro partial birth abortion speaker. You're gonna
stop donating. I mean, like, this is like a very
reasonable thing to do there. So every donor has to
look out for his or her best checkbooks. I mean,
money is a limited resource there. There's a lot of
organizations that fight the good fight, so to speak. There,
So the donor is entitled to do whatever he wants. Charlie,
as the former CEO of Turning Point, is obviously entitled
to react to whoever he wants to as well. And
this is a large donor. He has every right to
be frustrated over that there. Frankly, I think I think
I would have into properly there. So this was a
close group chat where you know, we condis, you know,
say things with the with the expectation that these things
would be kept private about the way. I mean, you know,
that's kind of how group chats work. There's no inspectation
that there will be screenshots and leaks or any kind
of shenanigans like that. And you know, he was frustrated,
and the notion that he was actually gonna invite Candice
is insane. He was obviously not going to invite Candice Owens.
He was really frustrated, like, oh I might as well
just like invite Candas at this point there he was frustrated,
and part of that frustration was Charlie was genuinely frustrated
with how Israel defended itself over the course of the
two year war. We saw these fun letter.
Speaker 5: He was very clear about.
Speaker 3: That exactly, and I read that letter back in junior July.
His team gave me access to it, and it was
it was a fantastic letter. I agreed with basically the
word I think, I mean essentially the whole thing, which,
by the way, the very first line of that letter began.
You know, as a Christian, one of my greatest joys
in life is befriending Jewish and defend the state of Israel.
So I mean, you know, talk about someone who, to
Carlston actually considers to be the scum of the earth,
right right, And anyway, the relevant point about this, uh,
this is Shang you're talking about there. The day before
his murder is that happened around three point thirty four
pm in the afternoon Eastern time, if I married the
time stand correctly. Two hours after that, at six pm
Eastern time, we had a little zoom call that Charlie
himself organized between me our mutual friend Rabbi Payesock Wilicky,
who lives in Jerusalem. He used to be on the
you know, on a lot of shows, or maybe he
still is. I mean, he was kind of a figure
in right wing media. So it was me, Rabbi Wilicky,
a couple of Charlie's producers, and Charlie And the entire
purpose of this one hour zoom call was he wanted
to have this call the day before he began his
national campus tour because he wanted to make sure that
he had all of the right talking points, the right
way to communicate, how to best defense and to the
Jewish people and the US Israel relationship. So we talked
about how do I respond to accusations of genocide, how
do I respond to accusations of famine, how do I
respond to accusations of two state solution, one state solution.
We kind of spent an hour kind of going issue
by issue, Here's how I respond there, And he was
really pleased with how that meaning went. And in this
post that you're referring to, where I you know, I
kind of hate the whole screenshot game. If he just
feels really icky, I mean, especially with like a dead friend.
I mean, it's horrific, but in the interest of clearing
my own name, if nothing else, I took this screenshot
of Charlie, you know, then messaging like an hour or
two whatever after that zoom call saying like thank you
guys for the call, super helpful, which we're actually the
last messages that he ever sent to that group CHEF.
So again, someone who was like literally turning on Israel
would not have had that zoom call the night before
his national campus tour began for the express purpose made
sure that he had all of the best answers possible
to respond to the outpouring of anti Semitism and anti
Israelism on college campuses.
Speaker 1: Why why are people not I mean, people are making
this so much more complicated and seedy and conspiratorial than
it needs to be. And I will never understand it,
and I and I actually don't understand.
Speaker 2: And maybe you have.
Speaker 1: Perspective about this, like, is there a reason that the
folks at TPUSA, including Andrew and Blake and the rest
of them are being so cagey about not directly calling
out what she is saying?
Speaker 2: I mean, is it?
Speaker 1: Is it because the investigation is ongoing, Because I mean
they do they do, you know, reply to some of it,
I guess, but they never name her, they never just
call her out directly.
Speaker 2: And I don't really understand it.
Speaker 3: Well, your first question, you know that you don't understand
why this is why people are kind of mudding the
water is when it seems so clear. There's a very
simple answer for that, which is that Jews are involved.
I mean, this is this is all part it's it's
it's very it's very ugly stuff. This is all part
of an insidious effort after the assassination of his entire generations,
leading Christian Zionists to try to paint him as turning
on the Jews, as not a friend of the Jews,
therefore trying to redefine his legacy for future generations as
well as shape and steer the the direction of turning
point USA. That's the that's the entire purpose here, that
that is the entire reason that they're all doing this.
That's the entire reason that the conspiracists are saying that
Israel killed Charlie Kirk and Candice said that I did,
and like, I mean, that's that's the whole that's the
whole reason. That's the whole reason that they're trying to
paint Charlie as something other than than what he was,
which was a bridge builder between Jews and Christians, between
the US and Israel communities of faith, and and on
and on and on. So that's the first part of
your question as far as why Turning Point has thus
far not issued many, if any, definitive statement. I obviously
can't speak for Turning Point. I I don't I don't
get paid by Turning Point. I I I I think
they should. I'll be I'll be very cam with you.
I think that would be helpful. I certainly, I certainly
would have welcomed some sort of, you know, ammunition, some
sort of definitive statements when I was kind of in
the throes of Candice Ownes's digital jihad against me a
few weeks ago. That would you know that that would
have been nice. By the way, it's not just me,
I mean she had she had she had a recent
episode about about Mikey McCoy, Uh, unbelievable, like the nicest
guy in the world. I mean, his father, pastor Rob
was Charley's spiritual mentor. I mean, you know, she's gone,
after she's gone, after Andrew as well. So she's thought
she's out there a lot of folks Erica Kirk as well.
I mean, so, uh, they definitely have grounds well beyond
you know, little Josh Hammer to go and you know,
defend their name, defend their integrity against this. As to
exactly why they're not doing so, I couldn't exactly tell
you to be honce.
Speaker 4: Me yeah, because it's not they're not just she's not
just redefining his legacy. She's trying to redefine him as
a person. And that is like if I were.
Speaker 6: His wife, I would be swinging, would be so much Josh,
you know what I mean, I just and if a friend, so,
I mean, I we do, we have questions.
Speaker 5: There's got to be a reason.
Speaker 4: There's got to be a reason why they're not because
I would be old school.
Speaker 3: On well I think I mean, look, I think the
organization is just in a bit of flux. It probably
in a bit of turmoil to yeah, they just lost
the guy who was was the organization. I mean, I
mean Erica Kirk has been named the new CEO Chairman,
whatever her exact titles are, and she spoke with the
old miss event last night. But I mean, she's also
the grieving widow with two.
Speaker 1: Young children, which makes it all that much more cruel.
Speaker 5: It is cruel, Mack. It is so it is.
Speaker 4: It's just disgusting, is what it is. It's all so
gross and yeah.
Speaker 1: It is so okay, So final question before we let
you go, unless Amy, Joe, if you have something else. No,
I'm jumping and I'm good, all right, And so the
question is about your Daily Mail piece about Tucker and
this whole controversy that's been blown up about your word
of the word that you used neutralize the Fox and
the Henhouse are because we've been trying to I mean,
to me, it's again, it's just like you posted the
definition that you used. It was the very first definition,
the most commonly used definition. Not sure why people are
making this a thing, but they are looking back. Would
you choose a different word now or do you just
think this is absolute insanity that people are assuming once
again that you are somehow in on executions and like
murdering people.
Speaker 3: Well, yes to both your questions. I mean, is it
is obviously beyond absurd. I mean, the Daily Mail is
one of the largest newspapers in the UK. It's probably
one of the largest newspapers in the Western world. There
were at least three different editors at The Daily Mail
who read this column. No one even bad in an
eye leash for this for the very simple reason that
to someone with more than one or two brain cells,
this is this, this, this should be really obvious, so
that that that is just clearly true. And the corollary
to that is that whether it's Candice or Dave Smith
or all these usual actors, there they are willfully and
disingenuously mis distorting and warping my words because it all
has an agenda. And the agenda, let's let's be very
clear about the agenda, is nothing less than to kick
Jews out of out of MAGA, to kick Jews out
of the American rights. Frankly, if you really want to
extraple even further, I think a lot of I think
a lot what a lot of these people really desire
is to get the Jews out of America, to actually
have like a Queen Isabella, you know, fourteen ninety two style,
you know, edict of expulsion of the Jews, but at
a bare minimum, get them out of Mega. That that
is clearly what is what is motivating a lot of
these particularly irksome, insidious actors, and that that is definitely
what is behind this clearly orchestrated outrage campaign on me.
Yet again, on the other hand, on the other hand, yes,
I mean, if I knew this was coming, I obviously
would have used a different word, of which there are many,
But I mean, just to say the obvious. I don't
think this audience needs to hear this. A fox in
a hen house is a very well known metaphor in
the English language. It's like, it's like speaking of killing
two birds of one stone. You're not literally talking about
killing two birds. It's a very it's it's a very
very common way way of speaking. And to speak of
neutralizing the threat. After my op ed just spoke of
Tucker as having as his goals not just the belittling
of Jews and Evangelic Christians, but also the obliteration of
Maga itself. Whi's my actual thesis there, that's why he's
a threat, because I think he's actually he's a threat
not just Jews, not just Evangelicals, not just Christian design as,
but to literally Maga itself. So you neutralize that that
threat when the threat is in the form of influence
and policy ideas and general worldview. And the way you
do that is you have a battle of ideas within
the right. Okay, I'm talking here about about an intra
right battle of ideas, and how I hope, indeed I pray,
that the forces of sanity within the broader right prevail
over the forces of insanity. That is how you neutralize
an intellectual or philosophical threat. That's obviously what I meant.
And Frank, anyone interpreting to the contrary is is a
genuine moron and or willfully wilfully disingenuous. It's probably a
lot more of the latter than the former. But despite
all that, yes, of course I would have used some
other syndom in hindsight.
Speaker 1: These are the same people, though, who have no problem
with the absolutely disgusting film that comes out of Nick Quentas.
Speaker 5: I mean, platform that guy.
Speaker 3: They're trying to tone police a certain verb at the
literally the last ends of my opbed. While on the
other hand, if you object to Tucker platiforming Flentis, then
you're accused yourself of tone policing. I mean, I mean,
I mean square that circle for.
Speaker 5: Me, Yeah, I mean like Stalin is great, right, I mean, like, yeah,
that's it.
Speaker 2: All just seems so crazy.
Speaker 5: Everything's upside down. I can't.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Josh, thank you. You've cleared up a lot for us.
We wanted to.
Speaker 1: We wanted to give you an opportunity to sort of
make your case because we try to do it along
with you, alongside of you on Twitter, because we see
the attacks. We know how baseless and ridiculous they are.
We don't understand why people just don't absorb the most
common sense, simplest explanations for things.
Speaker 2: But this is where we are now. So we appreciate
your time.
Speaker 4: We do