Speaker 1: So if the Trump administration, if the FED killed Charlie Kirk. Look,
Speaker 1: there's no middle ground here right now. Either Erica Kirk
Speaker 1: is evil and was in on it, or Candace Owens
Speaker 1: is an evil.
Speaker 2: I hope I'm being really clear about that. Stephen Crowder,
Speaker 2: what are you up to, Bud? What are you doing?
Speaker 2: What are you doing?
Speaker 3: Really? What are you doing?
Speaker 4: Now?
Speaker 2: If you think that Candace has been off base, then
Speaker 2: you may agree with the underlying sentiment that Stephen Crowder
Speaker 2: is putting forward. But I want I'm going to play
Speaker 2: you the clip that he's responding to, and I want
Speaker 2: you to tell me if you think it's a fair
Speaker 2: interpretation of what Candace Owns had to say.
Speaker 5: My heart aches for the fact that he gave so
Speaker 5: much of his life to Trump into politics, and they
Speaker 5: just were like, Nope, that is it. It serves us
Speaker 5: or it doesn't serve us, and we want to move on.
Speaker 5: And so here's a holiday, bro, If they try to
Speaker 5: give me a holiday, what is what them giving people
Speaker 5: a holiday after.
Speaker 1: They kill him?
Speaker 6: Why is that a thing?
Speaker 1: You know what I mean?
Speaker 5: Like, Oh, Martin Luther King, what about this holiday?
Speaker 7: What about this boulevard?
Speaker 5: Anyways, let me knock it off, like they're gonna give Charlie.
Speaker 3: Cook and Bulevard.
Speaker 5: They already did. They did in Israel. They gave him
Speaker 5: freaking bullet. It's like, as soon as they give you
Speaker 5: a boulevard in a holiday, they definitely killed you. Okay,
Speaker 5: there's no question they killed you. There's no way. That's
Speaker 5: like their signature thing. It's like that's what they do.
Speaker 5: It's the FED signature currently sign off after they murder you.
Speaker 5: So like holiday in a boulevard and it's never on
Speaker 5: a nice side of town either, Like Charlie Kirk boulevard
Speaker 5: is not gonna be.
Speaker 3: A nice side town.
Speaker 2: So what is Candace actually saying. She's saying that she
Speaker 2: thinks that Charlie Kirk was taken out by the FED.
Speaker 2: But then she talks about how there is a boulevard
Speaker 2: named after Charlie Kirk that's in Israel. So maybe she's
Speaker 2: implying that in fact, it was done in a joint
Speaker 2: operation or by a foreign intell agency, a federal government
Speaker 2: that just isn't American. I'm not sure exactly what she's
Speaker 2: she's saying, and she's not making it crystal clear, but
Speaker 2: what I'm pretty confident of is that she is not
Speaker 2: saying that Donald Trump UMP is responsible. What I took
Speaker 2: away from it, and I think this is a much
Speaker 2: more fair reading or interpretation of what she has to say,
Speaker 2: is that she is disappointed in the Trump administration, as
Speaker 2: I share much of the disappointment not just in the
Speaker 2: Trump administration, but in many of Charlie Kirk's inner circle,
Speaker 2: from Pasobic who I read the Riot Act a couple
Speaker 2: of weeks ago, to many other figures that were very
Speaker 2: close to Charlie who seemed completely disinterested in actually digging
Speaker 2: into this story and making sure that they have the
Speaker 2: right guy. So just because she says that he's been
Speaker 2: betrayed does not mean that he has been betrayed in
Speaker 2: terms of the actualist murder, but rather he may have
Speaker 2: been betrayed in the aftermath, as in people are not
Speaker 2: doing their jobs, cash matel dan Begino. Yeah, you guys,
Speaker 2: that that's what she's saying. I mean, that's to me,
Speaker 2: it's crystal clear that's what she's saying. But that's not
Speaker 2: even the most far fetched interpretation, which I don't think
Speaker 2: that even though Crowder is making it seem as if
Speaker 2: it's a definitive statement that In fact, Candice Owns believes
Speaker 2: that Donald Trump ordered to hit against Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 1: Outrageous claims, and this is an outrageous claim, require outrageous evidence,
Speaker 1: of course, as is par for the course. None has
Speaker 1: been presented. And I know that there might be an
Speaker 1: out a weaseling here saying, well, I said the Fed,
Speaker 1: not the Trump administration.
Speaker 3: I said a boulevard in Israel. It's pretty clear.
Speaker 1: Not clear what she said, was they the Fed give
Speaker 1: you a boulevard when they that's a sure sign that
Speaker 1: they have killed you. You know that they have killed you.
Speaker 1: He was betrayed in the worst way possible, giving so
Speaker 1: much of his life to the Trump presidency, to politics,
Speaker 1: the federal government. The Trump administration killed Charlie Kirk, is
Speaker 1: the claim.
Speaker 2: I don't believe that, and I doubt she does either.
Speaker 2: But he interprets this even more absurdly by dragging Charlie's wife,
Speaker 2: Eric Occurr into this.
Speaker 1: Here's now, I'm going to tell you how I feel
Speaker 1: about it, what I think about it, because you know
Speaker 1: who else would have to be involved. And this is
Speaker 1: the implication, of course, by design. And you can see
Speaker 1: the response with people out there saying Oh, well, then
Speaker 1: anyone who's close to Yeah, this is an inside job.
Speaker 1: You know who's really close to President Trump? And you
Speaker 1: know who people are now saying stood to gain Charlie's wife,
Speaker 1: Erica Kirk, who has now been put Candace with that language,
Speaker 1: with this accusation, has put the wife of Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 1: And she'll say, that's not what I try to do.
Speaker 1: It is it's the result Erica Kirk in the crosshairs.
Speaker 1: So if the Trump administration, if the FED killed Charlie Kirk. Look,
Speaker 1: there's no middle ground here right now.
Speaker 3: Either Erica Kirk.
Speaker 1: Is evil and was in on it, or Candace Owens
Speaker 1: is an evil I hope I'm being really clear about that. Oh,
Speaker 1: you're being really clear. You're just not making any fucking
Speaker 1: sense whatsoever.
Speaker 2: I mean, let's rewind a little bit, because I think
Speaker 2: in a five to six week period, especially with a
Speaker 2: news cycle that's been as fast as this one has,
Speaker 2: it's very easy to forget some of the order of operations,
Speaker 2: how things played out, and also things that have been said.
Speaker 2: I think a lot of people forget some of the
Speaker 2: track record with these people. So let's first start with
Speaker 2: the fact that Kennice Owens herself said explicitly, there are
Speaker 2: only two people on this planet that could get her
Speaker 2: to stop digging into her personal investigation figuring out who
Speaker 2: killed her friend, and that is her family and Erica Kirk.
Speaker 5: No one, and I mean absolutely no one outside of
Speaker 5: my husband and Erica Kirk has the power to shut
Speaker 5: me up right now.
Speaker 6: But she didn't have to say that, but she made
Speaker 6: sure to put it out there, kind of putting it
Speaker 6: out there that Erica could tell me to be quiet
Speaker 6: and guess what I'm coming out with these episodes because
Speaker 6: she hasn't. And then you have to think about that,
Speaker 6: Why hasn't Erica ever said be quiet? If Erica did
Speaker 6: even even a tenth of what Candace has done, even
Speaker 6: said just a few sentences, they would lose all their donors.
Speaker 6: They could easily lose all their donors, all the big ones,
Speaker 6: they could just lose them. But if Erica stays silent,
Speaker 6: and she just stays as graceful as she has, because
Speaker 6: that's all she's been doing, she's just been incredibly graceful.
Speaker 2: So I want you to ask yourself if Candace is
Speaker 2: trying to throw shade at Erica, if she's trying to
Speaker 2: basically say that she was involved in the murder of
Speaker 2: her own husband. Would she be giving her the green
Speaker 2: light to get her to stop just by saying the
Speaker 2: word please stop? That seems odd, doesn't it. That seems
Speaker 2: a little bit out of left face if Steven Crowder's
Speaker 2: interpretation is right.
Speaker 3: And the reason that.
Speaker 2: It's out of left field is because it's fucking nuts.
Speaker 2: It's totally wrong. And I think with malice it is wrong.
Speaker 2: And I'll tell you why I think that. Here's another
Speaker 2: titbit of history in this six week insane cycle of
Speaker 2: news with this entire attack story, is that who was
Speaker 2: the very first person to break a big news story
Speaker 2: when it came to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I
Speaker 2: bet you can't even remember. I'm sure some of you can,
Speaker 2: but I bet most of you can't remember. Stephen Crowder.
Speaker 2: Stephen Crowder in the wee hours of I think it
Speaker 2: was September tenth, no of the eleventh, the day after
Speaker 2: the attack on Charlie Kirk, he releases He says, I
Speaker 2: got breaking news. He is the one who broke the
Speaker 2: story that the shellcasings had been engraved with you know,
Speaker 2: pro trans rhetoric, whatever, that means, isn't it interesting and
Speaker 2: interesting that Stephen Crowder, of all people, who is clearly
Speaker 2: intentionally with malice smearing Candace Owens, who has been doggedly
Speaker 2: digging into this case, he was also privy to inside
Speaker 2: information from the Sheriff's Department in Utah in the early
Speaker 2: hours of the investigation. Isn't that an unbelievable coincidence? And
Speaker 2: it makes me wonder And I'm just wondering. I don't know,
Speaker 2: but it makes me wonder, sincerely, if Stephen Crowder is
Speaker 2: inop if he's not involved deeply on some level of
Speaker 2: intelligence agencies or something, or at least he has sources
Speaker 2: that are feeding him information and maybe this is his payback. Hey,
Speaker 2: you remember when we gave you that hot story that
Speaker 2: went crazy viral and brought you back into the mainstream
Speaker 2: relevance for a couple weeks. Well, Candice Owens has given
Speaker 2: us a lot of problems, and we're going to need
Speaker 2: you to take her down a pen.
Speaker 3: Could you do that? Sure? All right? Thanks?
Speaker 2: It'll go viral too, by the way, because as much
Speaker 2: as people are supporting Candid's, equal amounts are demonizing her.
Speaker 3: So it's a it's not a hard sell. Right.
Speaker 2: Look, I'm just this is my honest opinion. I don't
Speaker 2: know how you hear what Candace said, like you can
Speaker 2: hear what Candace says there and completely disagree. Of course,
Speaker 2: I'm not even sure I agree. I think that there's
Speaker 2: certainly not everybody who gets a street named after them
Speaker 2: was murdered by the federal government. Okay, not everybody. And
Speaker 2: she's saying like, that's a share sign. That's not a
Speaker 2: share sign. I grew up in San Diego. There was
Speaker 2: Ted Williams Parkway, Ted Williams Baseball great not murdered by
Speaker 2: the government. I'm pretty confident. I'm pretty confident about that one.
Speaker 2: So this is not a uniform statement, and I think
Speaker 2: she's being hyperbolic. But it is also true in my
Speaker 2: opinion that Martin Luther King Junior was and he's got
Speaker 2: a whole lot of streets, and yeah, they are on
Speaker 2: the rough side of the tracks almost all the time.
Speaker 2: And I think it's fair to wonder if perhaps Charlie
Speaker 2: Kirk was taken out by the federal government for his
Speaker 2: shift on opinion when it comes to our greatest ally.
Speaker 7: Manytimes, the whole country's a fortress when I first heard
Speaker 7: this story. I still have the same gut instinct that
Speaker 7: I did initially. I find this very hard to believe.
Speaker 7: I've been to that Gaza border. You cannot go ten
Speaker 7: feet without running into a nineteen year old with an
Speaker 7: AR fifteen or an automatic machine gun that as an
Speaker 7: IDF soldier. Right, the whole country is surveilled. And so
Speaker 7: let me just kind of go through this. We don't
Speaker 7: talk about Israeli politics very often, and most Americans don't
Speaker 7: know this. The last nine months Israel was on the
Speaker 7: brink of civil war. It's not an exaggeration. This judicial stuff.
Speaker 7: There were hundreds of thousands of Israelis taking to the
Speaker 7: streets because bb Netnyah, who is basically redefining the Israeli constitution.
Speaker 7: That's not an exaggeration, right. He said the judicial branch
Speaker 7: is too much power. There were protests planned this week
Speaker 7: against Netanyahu where they anticipated tens of thousands of people
Speaker 7: to take to the streets. That's all gone, Patrick, Netanyaho
Speaker 7: now has an emergency government and a mandate to lead.
Speaker 7: I'm not willing to say to go so far that's
Speaker 7: saying that net Yahoo knew or there is intelligence here.
Speaker 7: But I think some questions need to be asked. Was
Speaker 7: there a stand down order? Was there a stand down
Speaker 7: order six hours? I don't believe it.
Speaker 2: It's a fair question to ask. It doesn't mean it's true.
Speaker 2: It means it's a legitimate question to ask, of course,
Speaker 2: And anybody trying to stop you from asking that question
Speaker 2: is not your ally.
Speaker 3: I promise you.
Speaker 2: They are interested in firewalling you from genuine inquiry into
Speaker 2: the nation who is responsible and famously so for the
Speaker 2: most political assassinations of any nation on the planet over
Speaker 2: the past one hundred years, seventy five whatever. Okay, it's
Speaker 2: totally fair for you to ask that. And maybe it's
Speaker 2: not fair to say definitively, I know, because you don't
Speaker 2: have proof. That's I'll be the first to critique eint care,
Speaker 2: buddy of mine, I critique him. Don't say definitively if
Speaker 2: you don't have proof, that doesn't help. But anybody telling
Speaker 2: you you can't even consider it, that's even worse. That's
Speaker 2: like definitely someone who's interested in painting a picture, crafting
Speaker 2: a narrative, keeping you from actual genuine inquiry into what
Speaker 2: matters tremendously, which is who actually did this and why?
Speaker 3: Which we still don't know definitively, and.
Speaker 2: That's why I've come to the defense time and time
Speaker 2: agative Candice owns. Even though I think that she has
Speaker 2: been sloppy at times, I think she has been reckless
Speaker 2: at times when it comes to how she has covered
Speaker 2: this story from talking about b cults and all sorts.
Speaker 2: I mean, she's just thrown shit at the wall sometimes,
Speaker 2: but she has also brought to the four more valid
Speaker 2: information than just about anybody. And that's why I defend her,
Speaker 2: because you can take the good with the bat, and
Speaker 2: that's kind of it's a shotgun blast of information and
Speaker 2: you have to sort it out yourself.
Speaker 3: So I just want to be very clear.
Speaker 2: I have appreciated her efforts, despite the fact that I
Speaker 2: think she has gotten out over her skis a few
Speaker 2: times and probably put undue cause for concern on other
Speaker 2: people that were within Charlie's inner circle that probably don't
Speaker 2: deserve it. I mean almost certainly some of them probably do, though,
Speaker 2: and that's where the good with the bad comes.
Speaker 3: Right. Here's a good example of this.
Speaker 2: I want to be very clear, I'm making no allegations
Speaker 2: against this guy whatsoever, but this is yet another example
Speaker 2: of someone in Charlie's inner circle behaving very strangely in
Speaker 2: the aftermath of this attack. His name is Mike McCoy
Speaker 2: or Mikey McCoy, and he is the chief of staff
Speaker 2: for Charlie kirk Kirk under TPUSA, and he has this
Speaker 2: very odd reaction after the shooting. Gang finds great and
Speaker 2: I've scrolled his Instagram and it seems like they were
Speaker 2: definitely friends. He Charlie was at his wedding, and like,
Speaker 2: it's very unusual behavior, like just putting myself in his shoes.
Speaker 2: If I see my friend get shot, I'm almost either
Speaker 2: either I'm running or I'm running towards him to try
Speaker 2: and get him to the ground faster because I'm trying
Speaker 2: to save my friend's life.
Speaker 3: He doesn't neither. He picks up his phone.
Speaker 2: It looks like he's putting his phone to his head,
Speaker 2: and then he immediately and casually walks away. It's unusual.
Speaker 2: But the reason I'm saying very clearly that I'm not
Speaker 2: making any allegations against him is that people do really
Speaker 2: weird shit in times of crisis. That's just the truth.
Speaker 2: A lot of people freeze, a lot of people run,
Speaker 2: a lot of people just do odd stuff. You had
Speaker 2: that one guy jumps up and like throws his hands
Speaker 2: and starts a USA chant. Maybe he is an op,
Speaker 2: maybe he's a lunatic. People do weird shit, And when
Speaker 2: you got three thousand people there for an event that
Speaker 2: is an obvious, like crazy crisis moment, you're gonna have
Speaker 2: some weird shit that is not, in fact indicative of
Speaker 2: involvement in the murder of Charlie Kirk. So I think
Speaker 2: it's really important that when people see weird stuff like that,
Speaker 2: it's fair to ask questions, absolutely, but please be careful
Speaker 2: about making allegations against people that were close to Charlie
Speaker 2: that behaved weirdly.
Speaker 3: I'll admit, but you don't know why.
Speaker 2: Maybe he got on his phone right away because he
Speaker 2: realized that there was an attack and he was calling.
Speaker 2: I don't know, the authority is a hospital something like.
Speaker 2: These are all things that could be proven out, though,
Speaker 2: and if you had a functioning FBI, a functioning investigatory body,
Speaker 2: be it local or federal, then they would give you
Speaker 2: those answers and hopefully they're digging. So that's the reason
Speaker 2: that I mentioned it is like, it's not to say
Speaker 2: that it's nothing but It's also to be very clear
Speaker 2: that it doesn't mean that it's everything. We don't know
Speaker 2: what it is. It's very strange, but it could be nothing.
Speaker 2: So just be careful, especially when you're dealing with people who,
Speaker 2: if they are innocent, as I said a week or
Speaker 2: two ago with Charlie's wife, be very careful about making
Speaker 2: accusations against if she is innocent. You're attacking a wife
Speaker 2: and a mother who is mourning the loss of her
Speaker 2: husband and one of the most graphic public political assassinations,
Speaker 2: I mean, the most in my life. But getting back
Speaker 2: to Crowder, what are you doing, Steven Crowder? This is
Speaker 2: I'm sincerely asking you, what are you intending to do?
Speaker 2: What are you attempting to do? Because this seems like
Speaker 2: such an intentional smear job against Candis Owans, claiming that
Speaker 2: she is in fact alleging that Charlie's wife was involved
Speaker 2: with a murder of her own husband, when in fact
Speaker 2: Candis Owans has not said that, and to a large extent,
Speaker 2: she's basically said the opposite, that she will stop if
Speaker 2: Erica Kirk tells her to. And I might also add
Speaker 2: that Cannis Owens and Erica Kirk started following each other
Speaker 2: after the attack. They did not follow each other prior
Speaker 2: to the attack. And I think that's interesting. Doesn't mean everything,
Speaker 2: but it could be something for sure that perhaps Erica
Speaker 2: enjoys that Candas is doing this, she appreciates it. Perhaps
Speaker 2: she's feeding her information. That's something that people ought to
Speaker 2: be asking themselves if Candis Owns is tarnishing Charlie's legacy
Speaker 2: and jeopardizing his organization and all this stuff, which is
Speaker 2: what a lot of the detractors of Candis Owns are saying.
Speaker 2: Erica Kirk, who's now basically taking over at the helm
Speaker 2: of TPUSA, who has a green light from Candas Owns,
Speaker 2: who said in public if you tell me to shut up,
Speaker 2: I will, hasn't done. So why is it hurting her brand?
Speaker 2: Is it hurting the case, the investigation and the murder
Speaker 2: of her husband? Doesn't seem like she feels that way.
Speaker 2: So what are you doing, Stephen Crowder? What exactly are
Speaker 2: you doing?
Speaker 3: Buddy?
Speaker 2: And I'll just say in conclusion, I'm not sure, but
Speaker 2: it strikes me as op like behavior. It does, and
Speaker 2: it makes me wonder how you got those leads about
Speaker 2: the shellcasings in the wee hours of the next day,
Speaker 2: how'd you do that? And why are you intentionally taking
Speaker 2: her out of context? Not even out of context, you're
Speaker 2: playing the clip and then just lying about what she said.
Speaker 3: Weird, weird behavior.
Speaker 2: But he's not the only one got so seth Dylan
Speaker 2: going on with Dana Loshan.
Speaker 8: Do you think that some of this is maybe the
Speaker 8: consequence of, you know, it's great to have a coalition
Speaker 8: or a big tint, but there's certain things that are
Speaker 8: just persona non grata in a coalition and using identity
Speaker 8: politics like the left ought to be one of them.
Speaker 8: Is some of this a failure to enforce that?
Speaker 3: Oh, certainly.
Speaker 9: I just wrote about this in the Free Press, by
Speaker 9: the way, talking about the foolishness of the no enemies
Speaker 9: to the right principle. I think it's not just foolish,
Speaker 9: it's immoral, you know, to not draw a line, to
Speaker 9: not be willing to say, you know, there are certain
Speaker 9: people that you won't lock arms with.
Speaker 3: A lot of these things. These are things that were
Speaker 3: the right.
Speaker 9: There was a lot more moral clarity on the right
Speaker 9: several years ago, where the alt right or you know,
Speaker 9: this white supremacist kind of like equal but opposite reaction
Speaker 9: to like the leftist antifa thugs. Like everybody kind of
Speaker 9: saw that as being this really fringe, really nasty thing
Speaker 9: that we didn't want any part of, and we distinguished
Speaker 9: between ourselves and them. We're like, they keep calling Trump,
Speaker 9: you know, and his supporters Nazis and Hitler and whatever, like,
Speaker 9: we're not like that. There may be people like that
Speaker 9: on the fringe far right, but we're not like them,
Speaker 9: we would distinguish. Now there are calls to join with
Speaker 9: them and to bring them into the movement. They're just
Speaker 9: filled with bigotry and hatred, they have authoritarian impulses, they're collectivists.
Speaker 9: Like you add all these things up and it's like,
Speaker 9: how could we possibly benefit from having them in the
Speaker 9: conservative movement? That doesn't make any sense. You know, this
Speaker 9: is a real reckoning for conservatives to decide what is
Speaker 9: our identity? What is a conservative? That's the next question
Speaker 9: that we need to be asking me. We had that
Speaker 9: question about what was a woman, Now we need to
Speaker 9: have it about what is a conservative.
Speaker 2: Well, we agree on one thing, we should be asking
Speaker 2: what a conservative is. And I also agree that I'm
Speaker 2: not very fond of collectivists or identitarians, which makes me
Speaker 2: ask the obvious next question, which is, why is it
Speaker 2: that you're so permissive, Why are you so accepting? Why
Speaker 2: are you so willing to excommunicate anybody who's not willing
Speaker 2: to accept the obvious collective identitarian worldview of zionis?
Speaker 3: Why is that the.
Speaker 2: One exception that should be allowed for on the right,
Speaker 2: but Nick Fuentes has to be excommunicated.
Speaker 3: Isn't that interesting?
Speaker 2: So my argument would be, if you want to get
Speaker 2: rid of the white nationalists, well then you ought to
Speaker 2: be getting rid of the Jewish nationalists too. On the
Speaker 2: right wing. That should not be permissible either, but it is.
Speaker 2: There's an exception being made, and that interesting, which draws
Speaker 2: into question your credibility, your entire worldview for that matter.
Speaker 2: You seem to be a fraud and I'm calling you that.
Speaker 2: I think that's my opinion. You are being a fraudulent actor.
Speaker 2: You're trying to gate keep a right wing movement, which
Speaker 2: you have no right to do. You have no right
Speaker 2: to do so because you're not even maintaining your own
Speaker 2: worldview in the prescription or description of what's transpiring right now.
Speaker 2: And moreover, you are tarnishing in fact, Charlie Kirk's legacy
Speaker 2: because this was the main fight that he was in
Speaker 2: in the final months of his life, which was to
Speaker 2: try and keep a big tent to allow for Candie
Speaker 2: Owans and Tucker Carlson, etc.
Speaker 3: Etc.
Speaker 2: Dave Smith to continue to attend TPUSA events and to
Speaker 2: kind of open up the dialogue when it came to
Speaker 2: American Israeli relations. That was what Charlie wanted. That is
Speaker 2: what he said in the final forty eight hours of
Speaker 2: his life that he had no choice but to abandon
Speaker 2: the pro Israel cause because he was hemorrhaging donors to
Speaker 2: that end. So, yeah, when you so casually and flippantly
Speaker 2: try and destroy Candis Owans, you're really doing what you're
Speaker 2: accusing her of, which is classic projection and gaslighting. I
Speaker 2: don't appreciate it. I don't, and I think that Charlie
Speaker 2: wouldn't appreciate it either. I think that he would definitely
Speaker 2: see what I'm saying here that you are the one
Speaker 2: making the exception for identitarianism and collectivism. You're the one
Speaker 2: doing that while accusing others of doing the same just
Speaker 2: because we refuse to go along with it.
Speaker 3: And that interesting.
Speaker 2: But Seth Dylan isn't the only one who's been trying
Speaker 2: to make his name on the back of this crisis.
Speaker 2: Josh Hammer, who I have already demolished for being an
Speaker 2: overtliar during an active murder investigation, had this to say
Speaker 2: a couple days ago.
Speaker 10: So the fact that we even had this big debate
Speaker 10: over Charles's legacy on Israel and Jews is pretty disturbing
Speaker 10: in of itself. But the reason that that Candice, I think,
Speaker 10: ultimately decided to go down this hyper conspiratorial, evil and
Speaker 10: demonic and twisted path when it comes to me in particular,
Speaker 10: is that it complicates her narrative and their narrative. It
Speaker 10: complicates their narrative because they can't stand the fact that
Speaker 10: a kipa yamaka wearing Jew who wrote a book about
Speaker 10: Israel and the US Western civilization. They can't stamp the
Speaker 10: fact that someone like that, someone like me, was actually
Speaker 10: in Charlie's inner circle. It deeply muddies, It deeply complicates
Speaker 10: their narrative, and therefore the narrative can't exist and has
Speaker 10: to be a radicid.
Speaker 2: Let me be crystal clear with you, Josh Hammer, I
Speaker 2: couldn't give a fuck less about your religion. I don't
Speaker 2: like you because you lied about a guy who you
Speaker 2: claim was your friend, who you were in the inner
Speaker 2: circle with. You lied about his mindset during an active
Speaker 2: murder investigation, and as far as I'm concerned, that makes you,
Speaker 2: that opens you up for inquiry from the officials that
Speaker 2: are trying to figure out motives for why Charlie Kirk
Speaker 2: was killed. And if they're not fucking talking to you,
Speaker 2: it's a tragedy. It's a travesty of justice. Actually, so
Speaker 2: I hope that they are, but just this constant, I mean, Oh,
Speaker 2: I'm woe is me?
Speaker 3: I'm such a victim? Right.
Speaker 2: You lied about the group messages, of the group chat
Speaker 2: that you were in and the nature of those communications
Speaker 2: that you were having with Charlie Kirk forty eight hours
Speaker 2: before he was murder in front of the world. And
Speaker 2: you're saying, Oh, Cannice Owens is attacking you because of
Speaker 2: your religion. Really, that's that's the reason that we're upset
Speaker 2: with you, Huh. Not because you lied during an active
Speaker 2: murder investigation about her friend. No, because of your religion.
Speaker 2: If you can't see it for the shield that it's
Speaker 2: being used as, I don't know what to tell you.
Speaker 2: I've never seen a more brazen and blatant example of
Speaker 2: using the anti Semitism shield for bad behavior that I've
Speaker 2: ever I've ever seen. It's just so obvious and reprehensible.
Speaker 2: So yeah, Josh Hammer, Seth Dylan, and Steven Crowder, I
Speaker 2: don't think that you're honest actors, and I don't I
Speaker 2: don't understand necessarily the nature of the game that you're playing,
Speaker 2: but it isn't a truthful one. And I'm going to
Speaker 2: continue to track in terms of following what you have
Speaker 2: to say because I have to. I have to figure
Speaker 2: out what's going on with this narrative battle. Why exactly
Speaker 2: are you doing what you're doing. Why are you overtly
Speaker 2: lying time and time again about people who seem to
Speaker 2: be genuinely interested in the truth of who killed Charlie Kirk?
Speaker 2: Why are you doing that? I'll leave that up to
Speaker 2: the audience to decide. You guys, tell me why are
Speaker 2: they doing that? Paid operatives just trying to capitalize on
Speaker 2: the time of crisis to make their names a little
Speaker 2: bit bigger or something worse.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I being totally honest, I don't know, but these are
Speaker 2: not honest people speaking of dishonest people. Let's tie into
Speaker 2: yesterday's show and talk get a little update on the
Speaker 2: West Bank acquisition from the Israelis. Obviously, jd Vance said
Speaker 2: that that was not going to happen, and Trump said
Speaker 2: the same. This is what Bibi has to say.
Speaker 11: The time Israe Dombamba Gumba usual.
Speaker 2: Now he's not speaking English, so I'll translate. He's basically saying,
Speaker 2: we're an indpenitation. They don't get to dictate what we're
Speaker 2: going to do, despite the fact that we exist at
Speaker 2: their mercy from financial to military support.
Speaker 3: Uh, we're going to do what we want.
Speaker 2: When it comes to the West Bank. Have you got
Speaker 2: a problem with it, you can kick rocks. Well here's
Speaker 2: what Jade Vance had to say.
Speaker 8: Thanks, sorry, I go ahead, We'll do The West Bank
Speaker 8: vote yesterday that took a place while you were in
Speaker 8: the country.
Speaker 6: Oh yeah, that was weird.
Speaker 4: That was weird. I was sort of confused by that. Now.
Speaker 4: I actually asked somebody about it and they told me
Speaker 4: that it was a symbolic vote, some symbolic vote to
Speaker 4: recognize or a symbolic vote to annex the West Bank.
Speaker 3: I mean, what I would say to that.
Speaker 4: Is is when I asked about it. Somebody told me
Speaker 4: that it was a political stuff, that it had no
Speaker 4: practical significance, it was purely symbolic. I mean, look, if
Speaker 4: it was a political stunt, it was a very stupid
Speaker 4: political stunt, and I personally take some insult to it.
Speaker 4: The West Bank is not going to be anexed by Israel.
Speaker 4: The policy of the Trump administration is that the West
Speaker 4: Bank will not be nx by Israel. That will continue
Speaker 4: to be our policy, and if people want to take
Speaker 4: symbolic votes, they can do that, but we certainly weren't
Speaker 4: happy about it, thank you.
Speaker 2: I was personally insulted. Well, that's good to hear, JD.
Speaker 2: And I hope you're sincere with that. For those that
Speaker 2: aren't familiar, the way Palestine is laid out is that
Speaker 2: it is essentially separated into two. You have Gaza and
Speaker 2: then you have the West Bank. And Gaza has been
Speaker 2: destroyed because that's where Hamas attacked from. But the West
Speaker 2: Bank has been slowly being taken over by settlers. But
Speaker 2: it is a piece of more peaceful region of Palestine,
Speaker 2: if there is one.
Speaker 3: And there was a vote right after Donald Trump said this.
Speaker 5: Is this week and he would not allow Israel to
Speaker 5: annex the West Banking.
Speaker 12: I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. No,
Speaker 12: I will not allow it. It's not going to happen.
Speaker 12: But I'm not going to allow it. Whether I spoke
Speaker 12: to him or not, I did, but I'm not allowing
Speaker 12: Israel to annex the West Bank.
Speaker 3: There's been enough.
Speaker 12: It's time to stop now.
Speaker 8: Okay.
Speaker 2: Now that's about as crystal clear as Donald Trump ever gets,
Speaker 2: especially when it comes to the topic of Israel saying
Speaker 2: not going to happen, flatly not going to happen. Then
Speaker 2: the next day after that, they have some allegedly ceremonial
Speaker 2: vote where they're voting on annexing up the West Bank.
Speaker 2: And yeah, it passed. I think it was in the Kannesset.
Speaker 2: So that's that's why jade Vance responded the way he did.
Speaker 2: And I just the whole reason I wanted to bring
Speaker 2: all this up is that this is really this is
Speaker 2: the divide on the right wing, and this is like,
Speaker 2: are we an independent nation or not? Who is in
Speaker 2: the driver's seat, who's the dog, who's the tail, who's
Speaker 2: wagon who We're about to find out if after all
Speaker 2: of the aid and support, military support, everything else munitions
Speaker 2: that has been provided to Israel in their war, and
Speaker 2: especially after Donald Trump is being very clear. He's not
Speaker 2: saying it overtly, but I'll tell you what he's saying.
Speaker 2: I'll translate. What he's saying is I told the Arab
Speaker 2: nations when it came to negotiations with a moss to
Speaker 2: get the ceasefire, to get those hostages out, that the
Speaker 2: West Bank will not be annexed. That's obviously what he's saying.
Speaker 2: So I told the Arab leaders the West Bank will
Speaker 2: not be annexed. Well, why was he talking to the
Speaker 2: Arab leaders, Well, because they were trying to negotiate a
Speaker 2: seasfire and a release of those hostages. So he's saying
Speaker 2: that was a chip. That was a promise that I
Speaker 2: made to the Arab leaders to get them to get
Speaker 2: Hamas to back down. And if you take the West
Speaker 2: Bank in the aftermath of this, then I look like
Speaker 2: a lying asshole, and I look like I'm totally not
Speaker 2: in control, and I'm the leader of America and allegedly
Speaker 2: the leader of the free world, and that can't happen.
Speaker 2: And then Netanyahu goes, we're an independentation, We'll do what
Speaker 2: we want. So we're about to find out who's an
Speaker 2: independent nation. It's only there can only be one as
Speaker 2: high Lander. It's high lender mode right now. Oh gosh,
Speaker 2: what a crazy world. All right, I'm gonna get out
Speaker 2: of here. If you enjoy this episode, please do it.
Speaker 2: Hit a like button, subscribe, leave a comment, and most
Speaker 2: importantly share it around. Pick up your your mom, grandma,
Speaker 2: niece's phone. Go search in their podcast you know pod
Speaker 2: catcher app and search Liberty Lockdown, Liberty Lockdown two words
Speaker 2: and subscribe and then hit auto update and just red
Speaker 2: pill the shit out of your Gigi because that's hilarious.
Speaker 2: And as always, if you want to get cozy, go
Speaker 2: to my pillow dot com use promo code Lockdown and
Speaker 2: pick you up some Mike Lindell styled coziness my pillow
Speaker 2: dot Com from Code Lockdown.
Speaker 3: Love you guys by subscribe to Liberty Lockdown. Great podcast.
Speaker 3: Clint is Tight