( -0966 ) Charlie Kirk Forensic Investigation (Roughly Aligned with Paramount Tactical), DC Memorial RFK Jr & Tulsi Speech Footage, Radical Hate & Hypocrisy

( -0966 ) Charlie Kirk Forensic Investigation (Roughly Aligned with Paramount Tactical), DC Memorial RFK Jr & Tulsi Speech Footage, Radical Hate & Hypocrisy

Also a weird Piers Morgan vs Don Lemon entanglement that has to be seen
to be believed. Lemon is so lacking self-awareness that he thought he was making Piers look bad but that's not how I saw it.

Free speech vs censorship & hypocrisy
Get your censorchip in stores while supplies last!

TRANSCRIPTION:

Trump has been suspended from Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and even Snapchat.
But don't worry, Mr. President, there are still plenty of apps you do have access to.
You still have Spotify to drown out the sound of millions of people cheering as you leave.
You still have Pet Finder since you're on the outs with Mike Pence.
You have Cameo, which will soon be your primary source of income.
You can still play Among Us, a game where everyone accuses each other of being against them.
You'd love it.
You can play Pokemon Go, you and Donnie Jr. can hunt Pikachu's together.
And when no one else wants you, don't forget, there's always your old friend,
the Domino's Pizza Tracker.
Not only did Trump get banned from Twitter, Google, Apple, and Amazon removed the Parler
app from their platforms.
Parler is where all the right-wingers gather to post Q and Onsense and misspell the word parlor.
And no one was more upset about parlor going away than a sneaky little congressman named Devin.
But it's more than just the financial aspect of that.
Republicans have no way to communicate.
I have three million followers on parlor.
Tonight, I will no longer be able to communicate with those people.
I mean, other than being on Fox News right now,
why does Devin Nunes always look like somebody knocked his ice cream out of his hand?
Trumpers are complaining bitterly that they're being silenced.
In fact, they won't shut up about being silenced.
On their three propaganda TV networks, on a thousand conservative radio shows,
all over the internet, they are screaming about being silenced.
They won't be silent about being silenced.
I come from a missionary family to Mexico.
We work with cartel members.
We sent convert to Christianity, saying how they traffic thousands and thousands of children,
specifically to democratic politicians.
And they actually said the biggest client for their product is the US government.
And that actually exploded under the Biden administration.
So the cartels were telling your family they were directly in prison.
They were trafficking kids to the Democrats.
Yes.
So it's legit cartels are trafficking kids as sex slaves for Democrats.
Yes.
Is this modern day slavery?
Yes, they are.
So just to give some detail for the audience.
Yes, sir.
You have an 11 year old girl.
What do they do with that girl?
They actually have to hide her.
We were in Guaula, which is where the sentas were at.
They just got eliminated.
But they were the biggest traffickers.
They actually kind of begin to dismantle under the Trump presidency,
even for the Mexican government.
But the biggest that they we've known people that had to leave states,
hide them, literally take them, like just completely.
And these girls become prostitutes.
100%.
As 12 years old.
Yeah, parents sold their kids into it just to survive.
When you hear that 320,000 kids have gone missing under Kamala Harris.
100% accurate.
We see thousands and thousands of migrants on top of trains
coming across just destroying everything across the path.
Do they mean America well or harm?
Absolutely harm.
So the cartel works with the American government.
100%.
To bring these kids as sex slaves.
Yes.
This is not a joke, everybody.
This is not a joke.
We've been saying this for a long time.
You guys can go.
We have Facebook page and everything.
It's the largest sex slave trade in the world history.
100%.
Kamala Harris is overseeing it and co-signing on it.
I got a call last night from Jack Vesubic and he says,
"Yeah, we see your viral post from an hour ago where you're quoting the TPUSA spokesperson."
By the way, he's a big fan of yours.
You know, you've met him.
You've finally met dinner with him, Andrew Colvin,
where he's quoting the surgeon that attended to Charlie when he was brought in.
And he didn't want to give the details out.
So I understand how it looks a little weird that the bullet didn't go through.
You need to call him.
So I call him and he goes, "Listen, I don't want to give the details out."
I said, "Well, I can't help it if I'm explaining."
He goes, "Okay, fine, but it's really gross."
And he said that again, he's being shot from down an angle.
It hits the spine and then bounces down, which is what it's going down.
And then it hits, it deflects with its philosophy, goes back into the spine,
blows out six vertebras.
The bullet then shatters.
That's what they do.
I've shot Wild Hog Straight on this has happened and deer,
and then exploded into the heart and fragment shot up.
So he oversimplified when he said, "Oh, then they found the bullet up in the shoulder by the neck."
No, it was fragments.
And I'm sitting there listening to this in the car and I'm like, "Yeah,
usually I shoot a deer or hog in the shoulder.
If you got a clear shot, but they're in the woods, you only got a front shot, you got to do it."
You hit them in the front, it'll go in, back out, out the side, out the front.
I mean, it does wild stuff.
So I'm not saying this is absolutely the perfect answer to all of this,
but I talked to FBI blitz experts, they said yes.
And I've seen it myself.
So that made a lot more sense.
So it didn't go through because, "Oh, yeah, think about it.
It's coming down at a major angle."
Then hits the bone and ricochets down.
And I've seen that happen many times where you go into the front of a mammal,
and that's what he was, a great man, and then it bounces around.
So that's why you don't get the exit wound.
That's the report.
[Music]

[Music]
Charlie Kearney used new media to
devastating effect in his mission to mobilize young people
of his conservative movement.
He understood the power of a viral moment to cut through a
complex argument and the great appetite
for proper debate.
There's two of many things we all love about our digital culture.
There's plenty of things many of us find
repellent about it too.
Witch hunts, vile smears we not dream of using in real life
and the business of saying things purely
to generate attention through
rage. Many prominent figures on the
right have accused Don Lemon of doing exactly that
this week, ironically, for making the
very same claim about them.
The thing that is so obvious
about it
and I think that's so disgusting
is that you don't really care.
You don't really care about
Charlie Kirk. What you care is that this is a
moment that you can use
to, for clicks
to boost your
MAGA,
bona fides with the MAGA group
or your political stripes that you can improve it
or you can have a moment where you're
crying in front of the cameras, you gather
all the reporters at the Capitol
and you go, "And it's your fault, and it's your
fault, and it's the left and whatever."
I am a lot
more fact based than I am
anything and so I don't believe
you, you are free to think that I'm
on the left and perhaps in this time
that we're in now with the Trump administration
and with MAGA, perhaps facts are
on the left and if you deem that being on the left
then so be it. I don't see myself as being
a political figure or a figure who's on the left.
It's interesting
your characterization about facts
because I would argue
that one of the reasons Trump got reelected
against all the odds, if you think about
what happened after January 6th and everything else,
the fact that he got reelected, I
always felt was three-pronged, right?
One was immigration, I think Biden
completely dropped the ball with immigration,
particularly on the southern border,
second the economy, and thirdly
the whole woke
issue, the whole woke
culture and in particular I would
say the issue for example
of trans athletes in women's
sport, which is to me
if you're talking about facts
it is something that most
Americans looked at and went
you know what, this is ridiculous, how can you
deny biological reality?
How can you go against
scientific fact?
So many would argue that it was the Democrats
who lost track of
facts and moved into
a slightly strange
surreal place where they were
trying to deny stuff which most Americans
went, well that's ridiculous.
Yeah.
Look I would not qualify it the way that you're qualifying
it, I do believe that you have a point about
the Democratic Party not understanding
the moment that we're in, that
America's in right now.
As far as trans athletes I think that
was, although I understand to certain
people it is a big deal, it is such a
minute, small
percentage of the population and the
trans athletes that are actually
in schools and that are
competing in competitions.
It's so minor, it affects
so few Americans
I'm shocked that it was
used to the
level that it was in the election
and to great success.
And so I must commend the Republicans
on an issue that wasn't really
an issue for most Americans
that they made it
into something that helped to catapult
this President into office.
I've heard a lot
of Democrats using that argument
and I've said to them
one of the most effective, I'm not saying
you're a Democrat, I've heard a lot of Democrats say it
and my argument to them has been yeah but
the New York Times reported
that the
they/them ad that Trump
put out which gathered momentum and
then became used more and more and more
was one of the most effective.
It was extremely successful. It was one of the most successful
modern political adverts because
it cut to the point I think again
about common sense that most Americans
actually
maybe they don't have it in their top five
things they care about. I would absolutely
accept that. But when you actually ask
them do you think this is fair?
Do you think it's right? Do you think it's equal?
Do you think it's good
that women's rights would be eroded?
They actually then do get quite
exercised about it. I think it affects
so few people I think it was
something that was blown out of proportion
and I while you know
there may be some people who are affected by it
and if they are I'm sorry that that happens but
I happen or happens
but I just don't
think that that was an issue that focuses on common sense.
So when you see for example in the Paris
Olympics when you saw
Imam Khalif an Algerian
boxer who had been banned from
the world championships for
testing positive for male chromosomes
when you saw a young female Italian
boxer quit after 40 seconds
because she'd never been hit that
hard and genuinely feared for her life
and Imam Khalif goes on to win
gold medal at the Olympics
does that not ring an alarm bell
for you Don? I mean do you not think that the reason
we separate sexes in the Olympics is
because males have an
advantage? I mean why would you not
think that's important? Do you want me to tell you the truth?
Let me
tell you Piers I'll tell you the truth
about this I heard about
this story but it's not something that I focus on. I'm
not watching the Olympics like that maybe I'm different
I'm just not I'm not that
interested in watching everything
I like to watch the swimming I like to watch the
gym the gymnast I'm not
interested in boxing or any of that because I
think it's a brutal sport anyway so
for me it's just not that interesting I'm sorry that
anybody was hit that hard but if you put yourself in
the arena to be hit and
someone hits you hard then
whose fault is that? Well you expect to be
hit by other women not men?
Well I don't know that I don't know
who she expected to be hit by. Well when men hit women we call it
violence. I'm sure she saw
I'm sure whoever was
in that competition understood
who they were going into the ring with and if
you put yourself in that competition
in the middle of a ring where punches are
being thrown then you can expect to
get hit hard whether it is a man
or a woman and that's
all I have to say about that. So you would have no
objection to men fighting women in a
boxing ring?
I did not say that I just said that's all
I have to say about that. But isn't that
the implication of what you're saying?
Now joining us the Secretary of
Health and Human Services
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
[applause]
[applause]
USA! USA!
USA! USA!
USA! USA!
USA! USA!
USA! USA!
USA! USA!
USA! USA!
USA!
[applause]
[laughter]
[laughter]
Yesterday
my
17 year old niece
left for Europe to go to
college
and while she was packing her mother
Amaryllis, my daughter
noticed that she had
put a bible in her suitcase
and Amaryllis
was curious about it
and she asked her and
somebody said to her
I want to live like Charlie Kirk.
[applause]
There are millions and millions
of kids around the country
who inspired, who now
want to live with Charlie Kirk
and that's a great thing for our country.
I met
Charlie for the first time in July
of 2001
I went on his podcast
and
I think we approached each other with a lot
of trepidation at that time but by the end
of the podcast
we were soul mates, we were
spiritual brothers
and
we were
friends. And over
the next couple of years our friendship
blossomed.
And he ended up being the primary architect
of my
unification with President Trump
which I...
[applause]
which I did my endorsement
at his rally at the turning point
rally in
Scottsdale
and he was the one who put the
"Charklers" on the stage when I
[laughter]
when I shook him. He made a big show of it
but
the overarching
mission of Charlie Kirk
was Jesus
but also free speech
and he saw them as intertwined.
He thought conversation
was the only way we were going to heal our
country. We had to learn
to talk to each other
without vitriol, without poison
without anger
we had to be able to listen
to ideas, we had to be able
to say what we mean
without being mean
and to talk to each
other across this divide.
It was the only way
and the polarization that's
driven now by these algorithms
and by all these other forces
in our society.
And that first conversation with him
that I had, we talked a lot, we had a
wide ranging conversation, we talked mainly
about the First Amendment
we talked about the fact that
our founders put
freedom of speech in the First Amendment
because all the other rights
are dependent on it.
A government that
can silence its opponents has
license for any kind of atrocity.
[applause]
[applause]
[applause]
[applause]
We were
specifically talking
about what happened during the pandemic
once the government figured
out that we would put up with the censorship
and
went after the entire Constitution
and immediately
[applause]
[applause]
and immediately
took away our right to
assembly, the First Amendment right
with social distancing regulations
they shut down the
First Amendment right to worship by
closing all of our churches
for almost a year
and keeping the liquor stores open as
essential businesses.
They went after
our Fifth Amendment right
to our property
rights. They closed down three and a half
businesses with no due process
no trust compensation.
They went after our Seventh Amendment
right to jury trials by making
whole categories
of businesses that we could no longer
sue no matter what they did to us.
They went after the Fourth Amendment
right, protection against
unwarranted searches and seizures
with all
these social distancing regulations
that made us have to produce our medical
records before we went to a public building
or an airplane or enjoyed
other constitutional rights.
And
Charlie, more than any figure
in our country, led
the resistance that has restored
freedom of speech to this country.
And he built this movement
you,
which is going to make sure that that never
ever happens again.
[applause]
When I,
when my brother David
died, I
had a conversation with my mother
who had been through more
than her share of loss and tragedy.
And I said,
I asked her, I said, does the whole
they leave in you when they die?
Does it ever get any smaller?
And she said, no,
it never gets any smaller.
But our job is to build ourselves
bigger around the whole.
[applause]
We do that by taking the best
virtues and character traits
of the person that we lost
and using discipline and restraint
and practice
integrating those character traits
into our own character.
And in doing that,
we make ourselves larger
and the whole gets proportionally
smaller. And we also
give that person a kind of immortality.
Because they are now
living on, the best parts of them
are now living on in us.
In one of my conversations,
and Charlie
was a target rich environment for
virtues.
We can all think of something
extraordinary that is love of family,
is love of God,
is love of freedom
of speech, is
reverence for this country,
is belief that we are an exemplary
nation. We are unique
in history. We are the only nation
with this kind of constitution.
In Europe, they don't have free
speech anymore.
We have an era, and we are the beacon
for humanity for the
rest of the world.
All of those visions, his vision, his mission,
to preserve those things,
his kindness, his kindness,
in talking to people with whom he disagreed,
are all things that we need to learn.
And we need to integrate it into our own lives.
As Tulsi said, we need to reach out
with love to the people
on the other side who are asleep
and who are too frightened
and too panicked
and too controlled to understand
what they are losing.
And we need to protect those things
until they wake up.
And I had a conversation
once with Charlie where
we were talking about the danger
that we both face
from challenging
entrenched interests.
And he asked me if I was scared to die.
And I said to him, there's a lot worse
than dying.
And one of those...
(Applause)
The chief among us
is losing our constitutional rights
and having our children
raised in slavery.
And I said to him,
"You're not going to die
having our children raised in slavery."
(Applause)
I said to him at that time,
I said, "Sometimes our only consolation
is that we can die with our boots on.
We can die fighting for these things."
(Applause)
Charlie gave his life
so that
the rest of us
would not have to suffer those fates
worse than death.
Now it's our job
that he's no longer there to lead us
to rush in
and fill the beer breach
and win this battle for our country,
for God, and for our families.
Thanks for all your help.
(Applause)
(Applause)
Aloha.
(Applause)
In the book of Corinthians,
Paul said,
"Therefore we are always of good courage
and know that while we are at home in the body,
we are absent from the Lord.
We are of good courage, I say,
and prefer to rather be absent from the body
and be home with the Lord."
Ultimately, for every one of us,
the time that we have
in this world is temporary.
Our time will come sooner or later.
And so the critical question that we have for ourselves
is whatever time we have,
what are we doing with it?
How are we making the most
of every day that we have?
Charlie Kirk, every single day,
carried out his mission,
motivated by his faith in Jesus Christ
and his unwavering dedication
to defending our God-given freedoms
enshrined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Because of his commitment and dedication,
his impact here and around the world is profound.
And it is a beautiful thing to see it playing out now.
Probably like many of you,
I had the privilege of joining Charlie
at some of his different campus visits,
and it was truly something to behold.
Because he did things that no one else would do.
As I sat with him in the very first time,
huge crowd, thousands and thousands of, yes, students,
but faculty members and people of all different ages,
and the first two or three people who had stood in line
waiting to say something to Charlie were very kind,
and they thanked him for his work.
They praised him.
They talked about how he positively impacted their lives.
It was powerful to witness and to see.
But Charlie wasn't there for praise.
He would call to the crowd and say,
"Hey, who here disagrees with me?
Come to the front of the line."
He listened carefully to everyone.
Even when others in the crowd booed, whoever was speaking,
he told them to be quiet and to let this person speak,
to show them respect.
And he engaged in that lively debate.
He encouraged it. He welcomed it.
And he inspired it in others, not belittling them,
not arguing just to argue, but to have a real, sincere dialogue.
You know, I've said many times,
and every soldier lives this fact, this truth.
I may disagree with what you say,
but I will defend to the death for your right to say it.
Charlie lived by this principle.
[Applause]
Charlie lived by the principle that no matter how horrible
another person's speech may be, their ideas must be defeated
by better ideas, not by resorting to violence.
[Applause]
You know, Charlie was killed on September 10th.
On September 11th, we observe the 24th anniversary
of the Islamist terrorist attack on our country 24 years ago.
Now, these events have something in common.
They were both carried out by those who hold on to ideologies
that cannot stand up to scrutiny and challenge,
so they feel that their only recourse is to commit an act of violence
to silence those who oppose them,
and to intimidate and terrorize others into silence.
This is the definition of terrorism.
We cannot allow ourselves to be terrorized into silence.
We need to live Charlie Kirk's example,
the example that he set, that are captured by the words
of Reverend Martin Luther King,
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that."
"Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that."
This was more than a quote from an icon in our past to Charlie.
He lived this every day, and he inspired countless people
around the world to do the same.
(Applause)
And in the wake of this tragedy, this has been what, to me,
has been beautiful to see how today, and, you know, Sunday football games,
all across the country, these teams were leading moments of silence,
putting pictures of Charlie up on the big screen,
having a flyover with the flags flying at half-staff
to honor the impact of Charlie's life,
how he positively inspired countless people,
and how it's up to us to continue Charlie's legacy.
It's time for us, every day, in how we engage with others,
to choose to live aloha, love, respect.
(Applause)
You know, from my home state of Hawaii,
the reason why we greet each other with the word aloha
is because of its deeply spiritual meaning.
It doesn't actually mean hello or goodbye.
We greet each other with aloha because what we are really saying
when we say aloha is, "I see you as a child of God,
and I respect you as such."
It is to recognize that God is all-powerful,
and God's love is all-powerful.
Love is not weak.
Respect for others is not weak.
There is nothing more powerful than love.
Living aloha, living that love and respect,
it doesn't mean being a pacifist or rolling over
when our ideas are challenged or when our freedoms are under attack.
Actually, it's the exact opposite.
It means standing up, fueled by love, to defeat hate,
to defeat that evil and that darkness,
and to speak the truth and defend our fundamental freedoms
that are granted to us by God.
[applause]
Charlie embodied this, and Charlie changed hearts and minds
of countless people around the world
because he made a conscious choice every day to choose love.
I had a friend of mine who sent me a text the day after
Charlie was killed, really distraught,
and she said, "What do we do now?"
I know the answer should be love, the answer should be peace,
but Charlie tried that, and it didn't work.
And my response to her was, "No, it did work, powerfully."
[applause]
And that's why they killed him.
We look at the movement that Charlie inspired around the world,
love, truth, freedom, turning to God in good times and hard times,
not asking God what he will do for us, but as Charlie said,
"I am far more interested in what God wants from me
than what I want from God."
He said, "My prayer is very simple.
God, use me for your will."
If only ten of us committed ourselves to continuing
Charlie's mission, that alone would be incredible,
to be that fertilizer and that water that will help spread
this light that is inspired by God's love.
But there are far more than ten of us.
There are countless people.
[applause]
Countless people around the world speaking different languages,
have different backgrounds, different views and opinions
who are eager to carry on Charlie's mission,
to spread this light inspired by God's love,
which will also expose those who are trying to shut down free speech,
trying to silence us through violence, intimidation and terrorism.
It will expose them for who they are and the hollowness and emptiness
and weakness of the ideas that they present.
[applause]
So while we will miss Charlie dearly,
our hearts should not be broken,
because we are confident that Charlie is at home with the Lord.
Embrace in the loving arms of Jesus Christ,
whom he dedicated his life.
Those who are full of anger and hopelessness and hate right now,
some of them protesting outside this hall today,
unfortunately they do not have the spiritual happiness
that Charlie experienced.
They're empty.
And this is where their anger is coming from.
It is their rejection of God, their desire to be God,
and therefore they have made God their enemy.
I have hope today that every one of us will do our best
to shine the light of God's love in our lives and in our work,
that we will treat each other with aloha, respect,
and stand strong and unshakable in the defense of our God-given rights and freedoms.
May God bless you all, and may God bless this great nation.
Aloha.
[applause]
Aloha.
I'm laughing because I was just telling Mike Benz,
I was trying to tell him, hey, I'll give him some of my time,
because he's saying some really interesting things.
Thank you so much. Have a seat.
It's so great to be able to join all of you here today.
This is an event I'm grateful to have been invited to year after year,
and the scheduling just never worked out,
and so I'm so glad to be able to come and to be able to greet you in person
and just talk a little bit about the grave challenges
that we face, yes, in the work that we're doing on a daily basis.
It's very appropriate that I'm following Mike Benz in this,
because he's focused on a lot of the same things that we are focused on
investigating and uncovering, but really the challenges that he is talking about
are challenges that every one of us as Americans are facing.
And the task is not just for a Mike Benz or for a certain agency to take on.
This is a moment of opportunity in our country where we have to be very clear-eyed
about the direct threats and challenges to our fundamental rights and liberties
and freedoms and what we, the people, are going to do about it.
We look at how it came to be for me and for others who I serve alongside to be here,
and to be a part of this change, we go back to the 2024 election
and look at how President Trump was re-elected and sent back to the White House
by a truly unique cross-partisan coalition of Americans who looked beyond labels
and really were attracted to his message of putting the American people first.
It was a resounding statement in his win of that election by a significant and historic margin,
and it was a clear rejection of the status quo of the Washington elite,
of political leaders who put their own self-interest ahead of the interests of the American people,
and it was a demand for a government of, by, and for the people.
So here we are about seven, eight months into this administration.
President Trump has wasted no time in challenging this system, this broken system in Washington,
and striking at its very root, delivering results for the American people
to make our nation more safe, secure, prosperous, and free.
I have the privilege of serving as America's eighth Director of National Intelligence,
and President Trump has entrusted in me the mission and responsibility
of overseeing the intelligence community, this sprawling network of agencies and entities
that are charged with the task of providing timely and objective intelligence
to the president and policymakers free from politicization.
Unfortunately, in my short 10 years here so far, we have already seen too many examples
of politicization and weaponization of intelligence throughout our country's history.
We look at where we are now. Over the last several weeks, we've declassified
and released documents that exposed how President Obama and leaders in the intelligence community
knowingly manufactured a false intelligence document after the 2016 election was done,
after the American people said, "No, we want Donald Trump to go and be our Commander in Chief,
not Hillary Clinton," and this manufactured document alleged that Russia aspired
to help President Trump win the election with the aim of undermining his presidency
and usurping the will and the voices of the American people who sent Trump to the White House.
You look at some of the very same leaders who led this manufactured intelligence document,
like James Clapper, also had a very direct hand in manufacturing intelligence
on the weapons of mass destruction, the alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,
to support George W. Bush's regime change war in Iraq.
For me to be here as the eighth Director of National Intelligence and uncover how James Clapper
and others like John Brennan manufactured intelligence to try to undermine President Trump's
administration and presidency and the voices of the American people,
and then go back to the founding of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
that came about as a result of the terrorist attack on 9/11 and the manufacturing of intelligence
to support the regime change war in Iraq that George Bush led, is an interesting bookend
where we find ourselves still dealing with these same issues of politicization and weaponization of intelligence.
James Clapper at that time was the Director of the agency that is now called
the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency or NGA.
And he wrote in his book about how Vice President Dick Cheney was pushing for intelligence,
pushing for intelligence to support the invasion of Iraq, to support the narrative of Iraq's alleged WMDs,
and to support the narrative of Iraq's alleged ties to al-Qaeda, neither of which actually existed.
So in response to this, James Clapper ordered his agency to create images that Colin Powell then went on to use
to support their alleged WMD narrative.
And in James Clapper's words, we were "so eager to help that we found what wasn't really there."
We've seen other examples, those that we know of.
There are many others that I believe we don't yet know of,
how leaders in the intelligence community and the FBI knowingly use false information
to gain FISA warrants to illegally spy on American citizens.
These are just a few of unfortunately what is a long list of known examples of politicization and weaponization
that all point to the truth that many of us here in this room know, which is that the rot runs deep.
And it's not just in the intelligence community.
I've seen examples of this across almost every federal agency.
And so it requires us all to confront the uncomfortable truth that we have these conspirators,
these traitors to the Constitution who are working within our government,
who dangerously believe that they are not only above the law,
but that they are above the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
People who believe that they have the right to undermine the duly elected President of the United States
because they disagree with his positions or his policies, and that they know better.
We go back to the first Trump administration and a prominent example of then former Lieutenant Colonel Vindman.
And I remember being in Congress as a Democrat at the time,
seeing his testimony and the testimony of others basically saying,
"Well, we have to protect the country from Donald Trump,
the person the American people elected to be the President of the United States."
Whether we agree or disagree on policy is not the point.
If you disagree on policy, go run for President and market your policies to the American people.
It undermines our Constitution, our Democratic Republic, and we have people within our government
who are not the President of the United States, who are not elected by the American people,
taking it upon themselves to undermine ultimately the American people and the Constitution.
These people have gotten away with these kinds of activities for so long
because they're protected by an entire system that is built to shield their nefarious activities.
And they do this with the assistance and the protection of the deep state and the propaganda media.
And those of us who have been targeted by this deep state are very familiar with the tactics.
Keep this in mind, this happens frequently in real time as we gather here today
where someone in the intelligence community leaks classified intelligence to their friends in the propaganda media.
Those individuals in the propaganda media eagerly print this classified intelligence from unnamed sources.
Then we see other people in the media talk about this classified intelligence.
No one's verified it. No one's done any kind of vetting.
No one has done any basic journalistic work.
And then we see politicians repeating and talking about this thing that was leaked to the media.
And we've seen how this tried and true playbook that is used over and over again
to either smear their opponents to, in President Trump's case,
to be used as a basis for FBI raids on his home, lawfare, impeachments, endless investigations, and so forth.
So I get asked oftentimes by people who don't come to events like this,
who are just working hard and trying to raise a family and trying to get by them and say, "What is the deep state?"
People talk about the deep state. What is it? This is what we're talking about.
It's not some grand conspiracy theory. It is a conspiracy to undermine the Constitution,
but this is the reality that we are operating in.
It's important for us to talk about it, to be very clear-eyed about it so that we can combat it with the truth.
And this is why exposing the truth is so important, to bring about that real transparency and that accountability.
Ensuring that our Constitution and Bill of Rights -- and this is something that I'm focused on
in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence --
and pushing throughout the intelligence community is actually focusing on the Constitution,
making it an event when new people are brought in to any of these organizations.
Every one of them has to swear an oath, as many here did if you served in the military,
if you served in different positions in government, to support and defend the Constitution, to talk about it,
have a discussion, what does this actually mean and how do we apply it in the work that is done every single day,
because it must be our North Star every day.
It must be that guiding principle that serves as our foundation and the left and right limits
and the decisions that are being made within our work.
Those who serve in government, in any position, at the very top, or those who may be coming in brand new,
our sole focus must be on serving the American people and upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
[Applause]
It's very, I feel, appropriate that I'm coming and speaking to you after Mike Benz
and hearing at least some of the things he talked about at the end about the various attacks on our fundamental rights,
freedoms, and liberties that are occurring not only here in the United States,
but how these threats are coming from policies and agreements that are being talked about in multinational organizations and settings.
Our founding documents were based on our inalienable rights and freedoms that are granted to us by God and no one else,
and it's up to us to continue to speak that truth and stand up against those who seek to take them away,
no matter where they are or who they are.
We have a lot of work to do. We are working hard every day towards this end.
When you look at how deeply entrenched the deep state is, those who believe they are more powerful than the Constitution,
you can understand the work that we have ahead of us.
But I'm grateful to serve in this position, grateful to President Trump for entrusting me with this mission,
to truly seek the truth, find the truth, and tell the truth to the American people
so that true accountability and true change, lasting change, can come about.
You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.
This change will only be possible if every one of us as Americans stands together and fights for it.
The future of our country as a free nation is truly in our hands and we cannot be complacent.
We cannot fall asleep at the wheel and allow anyone to sneak in the back door and take it from us, literally and figuratively.
So this movement for positive change, institutional and historic change,
is about more than one person or one organization. It's about all of us.
And it's about restoring the promise of America and the vision that our founders had for our country.
And as we go back and look at their courage and their strength and the threats that were laid on them
as they worked to write these founding documents, I hope that that gives us inspiration and courage and strength
to fight the battles that we have before us, because we are the ones that they were referring to
when they talked about a government of, by, and for the people.
We're the only ones who can make it happen.
Thank you for standing for freedom and liberty and truth. Aloha.
What's your question?
So my question is, you've cited that example of him just unilaterally saying,
"Black women don't have the brain processing power," and so on.
But when you actually watch the whole clip in context, that's not what he said.
You were making my point about the clip before, and which is the same point about the clip now that you played of me,
where the context is explained, which is he was talking about not only Joy Reid, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Katanji Brown Jackson.
And it wasn't DEI that they were referring to. They were having discussions about affirmative action
and about qualified people, qualified women of color who were offered opportunities
or given opportunities that they may not have been given if it were not for affirmative action.
Nothing to do with diversity, equity, and inclusion.
And so what he said, he said, and I watched the clip, he said that what they were admitting to
is that they were somehow a DEI hire and so on, and about brain processing power.
I would suggest that you go back and listen to the clip that he, that clip in context of what he was saying.
He clearly said what he said, and I guess because of political ideology or because of bias,
people are trying to interpret it and make it into something else. That is not what he said.
Okay? He was very clear about the brain processing or lack of brain processing power for black women, or for those black women.
There is something wonderfully poetic about the fact that despite the fact that even if convicted,
he's not going to go to prison, the first person to actually criminally prosecute Donald Trump is a black Harvard grad,
the very kind of person that his former staff, the people who worked for him, Stephen Miller, et cetera,
want to never be at Harvard Law School. But he was. And he came out and graduated, he's prosecuting you, Donald,
and a black woman is doing that same exact thing in Georgia, and a black woman forced you to pay a $175 million fine
that's out now also in question because the people who put it up, that might not be legit.
Donald Trump is being held to account by the very multicultural, multiracial democracy that he's trying to dismantle.
And for me, there's something poetic and actually wonderful about that.
It says something good about our country that we're still capable of having that happen. Go DEI. My DEIs are bringing it home.
With Charlie Kirk's death, a lot of people on the left have come out gleefully celebrating what happened.
A lot of people have been posting stuff on social media, very happy. And they've turned out to be teachers, professors, doctors, nurses,
I mean, people in extraordinary positions of power over other human beings. What should happen to those people?
Well, I think we should look at every circumstances. The circumstances should be taken on their own merit,
and what should happen to them should be taken on individual merit. But I don't believe in canceling people.
Right. I think there's a lot of cancellation going on on the right right now, and I'm not comfortable with it.
I wasn't comfortable with it on the left either.
Right. Do you feel you were a victim of cancel culture at CNN?
I probably, I don't think, I look at everything as an opportunity. Probably, yes.
I'm sure that I was a victim of cancel culture, but I would say mostly on the right for cancel culture.
For those who don't know what I'm talking about, this is what led to you leaving CNN. Let's take a look at the clip.
She says people, you know, politicians or something are not in their prime. Nikki Haley isn't in her prime. Sorry.
When a woman is considered to be in her prime in her 20s and 30s and maybe 40s.
What are you talking about? Wait. That's not according to me. Prime for what?
It depends. I mean, it's just like prime. If you look it up, if you Google when is a woman in her prime, it'll say 20s, 30s and 40s. I don't necessarily.
40s. Oh, I got another jacket. And that's why I agree with that. So I think she has to be careful about saying that.
When you watch that, Don, I happen to be watching that live and I was like, well, what did you say?
What do you I mean, if you had a do over, would you say that again? I mean, what led you to say?
So, let me just say this. I'm going to answer your question, but just so the audience knows, and I hope you don't cut this out.
When I asked you what subjects you wanted to talk about, you know what you said to me?
You said I want to talk to you about freedom of speech in America and the response to Charlie Kirk's death.
Not once did you mention that we were going to talk about CNN or whatever. So and had I known that I probably wouldn't have accepted this interview.
This have you have invited me on many times and I tell you, Piers, I know you. I would come on your show, but I don't do panels.
And so when you said you're not going to be involved in the panel, I agreed to come on your show.
But I thought you would also stick by the subjects that you told me that you were going to talk about, try to ambush me with just to be clear.
You and I haven't done just to be clear. You and I haven't had any conversation about your appearance.
You're talking about my team talking to you. Yeah, no.
And I saw you, Piers, in a restaurant and I said, hey, Piers, good to see you. I would come on your show, but I don't do panels.
Right. And I said the same thing to your bookers. There's only one of you.
So when I asked you and right. OK. And so, yes. And I said, that's why I agreed to do it. But when you asked me or when your your team asked me what subjects and I asked them two or three times, I have the text messages.
What do you want to cover? Not once was CNN mentioned. So I don't appreciate being ambushed. But let me answer your question.
Hang on one second. Don, don, don, hang on one second. Let's just be crystal clear about what's just happened.
You brought up the subject of cancel culture. I asked you, did you feel your departure from CNN was an example of that? And you answered the question.
I think it's perfectly reasonable and I answered the question. Reasonable in that. If you said to me, I don't want to talk about it.
I don't think it's a completely disingenuous. I don't like arguing like this.
I'm not going to get into an argument with you. Here's I think that's completely disingenuous. And I think anyone watching that. What are you talking about?
And so if you will let me if you will allow me, please, please. Stop talking about. OK.
I'm did you invite me here to interrupt me or are you going to let me think you're being a complete dick if I'm honest with you?
OK, I do. Well, that's very kind and respectful of you. I don't like the hominem attacks.
I could respond in kind. You can say what you like about me. I think that I am. I think that I'm above that.
I don't I don't I don't I'm not going to do that. Here's that's not who I am. I don't understand why you're playing the victim card.
You yourself mentioned cancel culture because peers. Oh, my gosh. OK, hold on.
Let me just say let me do this. Read out my team's messages to you. It should be embarrassing.
Yeah, I can read out the team messages to you because I just think it's completely unfair.
And you know that can you I'm prepared to answer your question and then I'm going to move on.
I told you I'm prepared to talk about Charlie Kirk's death, the response to it and can and cancel culture and sorry and freedom of the press.
So freedom of speech. You were prepared to talk about canceling. Let me just say unless you.
No, I'm not prepared to talk about cancel culture, but that is oh, my God.
Pierce, could you stop interrupting me? No, really? You're kind of exhausting me.
It's ridiculous. Why would you react this way to a perfectly normal?
Obviously, if you mentioned cancel culture, obviously it's rational and logical.
I would ask you whether you felt what happened to you at CNN was that I played the clip and then you throw a moment enough.
I've given you your moment. I don't want a moment. So please.
Otherwise, you wouldn't do this. Otherwise, you would you would be a respectful journalist and host.
And you don't think you'll take lectures of being a respectful journalist because you want a moment.
Oh, my gosh, peers. I won't. I can't even hear because there's a delay and you keep talking.
And I mean, what do you want me to do? Like rip the earpiece out of the mic and run off.
So you have a moment. I don't care. You do whatever you like. Question.
Are you just going to keep are you just going to keep pilloring me with questions?
I don't know why you've gone on this weird rant. I don't understand any of it. Why have you done this weird reaction?
I simply asked you about whether you felt your departure from CNN was in your eyes an example of cancel culture.
I played the clip and I said, I don't say when you watch it back, you really understand what you were saying.
This is why I don't do this. But you're embarrassing yourself, peers.
You might be embarrassing yourself. Oh, my God. OK.
You might be. Have you thought of that? OK. You're a journalist.
You don't want to talk about a story, a massive story that involved you.
Piers, can we move on? Let me answer the question and then we can talk about the things that you show me on.
Why don't you just answer the question to start with?
And we've gotten so far away from what you wanted me to answer that we're off into La La Land.
So let me just let me say something about that. The clip that you played had nothing to do with me leaving CNN.
OK. And if you unless you know something that I don't know about me leaving CNN, then you should tell me about it.
Nothing to do. I worked there for months after that. So that had nothing to do with it.
And so, you know, I forget the other thing that you were asking me about in that clip.
I asked you when you watched the clip back if you could explain what was going through your mind. That's all.
Thank you. I think the key phrases in that clip, if you want to be honest and I want you to listen to it, is that I'm not saying that I believe that.
That's not according to me. What I'm speaking for, what I was speaking for there is how society treats women.
And someone like Nikki Haley should know women have been discriminated against for centuries.
She should be more careful than to say something that discriminates against older people. That's it.
And so people took that out of context. No one puts in whenever they write about it that I said, I'm not saying that.
I don't believe that. I said that very clearly there. So that is not the reason that I was let go from CNN.
And so, again, unless you know something, then, you know, go ahead and tell me.
Well, as you know, it was widely reported that was. So what was the reason?
Don't believe everything you read. What was the reason?
I don't know. You don't know? No. But it all happened after that incident. You know that.
Yeah. Well, Piers, everything happens after something. I don't understand what your point is.
My point is, I think it's quite newsworthy. If you say it had nothing to do with that, then it'll raise the obvious question.
I don't think it's newsworthy, Piers. That was that was three years ago.
It's not newsworthy. News means something that's new. This isn't new. Right. That was three years ago.
That's all litigated. If you want to find out about it, you are free to be able to read the interviews that I've read.
You're free to read the statement that I if you I mean, perhaps your folks should pull up the statement when I left CNN and that can explain to you what happened.
So this is nothing new. You just told me you've no idea why you were like, I'm doing something completely different.
And so that's that. You just said you've no idea why they got rid of you.
I did. So how do you know it wasn't to do with the clip we just played?
I just said that. I just said I just answered your question. Now, what else do you want to talk about?
What do you want to talk about, though?
The subjects that you invited me on to discuss, Piers, I thought that included free speech and everything around that.
I know that I know you're loving this viral moment. I just think that you don't think you understand what me at all.
I don't have got nothing against you at all. Never have had.
I was perfectly. You think I don't understand you, Piers, I worked with you for years. I know more about you probably than most people who are watching this program.
And most people, a lot of the people who are working with you. Why would I work with your staff?
I inherited. Hang on. I inherited your staff at CNN. I know way more about you than I would care to know.
I know way more about how you do business and how you approach journalism than I care to know.
I have not been on anyone else's show. I don't want to be on anybody's show. I don't want to do panel shows.
I don't want to argue with people about things that are inconsequential.
What we should be talking about right now is how to keep what happened to Charlie Kirk from happening to anybody else.
That's where the conversation should be. But instead, you're trying to get a moment. You're trying to make some news out of something.
But go ahead, have your fun. But we should be discussing something that is productive to the American people instead of something, instead of you going into the garbage
and trying to find something that will give you a moment or that you will get a click out of it or more viewers for your program.
You sound very bitter, Dom.
[Laughs]
Beers, are you kidding me?
No.
Bitter? I'm like the happiest go lucky person ever. I'm just exposing your hypocrisy and how you lied to me about what you wanted to discuss.
I've never talked to you about this interview at all.
Then you don't have conversations with your producers? So your producers lied to me or you're not that involved?
You've admitted one of the subjects you wanted to talk to you about.
You're not that involved in the editorial process of your own show where they don't convey to you what the guest is going to talk about on the program?
You obviously expected some...
You're not that involved in the editorial process of your own show that you don't know that paper?
You've already admitted that one of the subjects was free speech. And yet here you are getting enraged about me exercising my right to free speech to ask you a few questions.
I'm not enraged. I'm not enraged at all. I think this is kind of funny. I'm not enraged at all.
I mean it's kind of exactly what I thought like, hey, I don't want to go on the Piers Morgan show because of the spectacle of it all.
And so that's confirmation of that. But I'm glad you got this moment. This is a moment for me as well that's going to play out on social media.
It's going to be good for me too. So go for it.
What moment do you think we've got?
Piers, come on.
Come on. I don't know what you mean.
Come on. Let's do something that's more productive than this.
Well, you know, honestly, when you do this, when you say that I'm into journalism, you do this or like it's not journalism, you've taken a big, big, big high moral ground about.
Piers, you.
Hang on. Hang on. I'll ask you a question.
I am taking a high ground. Piers, you should know better than anyone where this conversation should be going, especially since you understand what happened at CNN with you.
I was about.
Gun control in the United States. That was a big thing for you when you were at CNN. And I'm not sure what happened if that was part of the reason that you were let go.
But, you know, hey, Piers, this is Don Lemon. I know you. I've worked with you. I know a lot about you.
So let's just move on and be adults. And so let's talk about I think something that would be important to you.
And that is sensible gun legislation in the United States that would have perhaps prevented the untimely and sad death of Charlie Kirk. Can we can we do that?
How would how would you present prevented it happening?
You. Why don't you tell me? Because you are an expert on the subject. At least you were when you were working at CNN.
You were very pro gun legislation. And I believe it. You know, correct me if I'm wrong. Pro, you know, gun control.
Yeah, I don't understand how you stop a deranged young man who the investigators say has become radicalized to the left from taking his grandfather's old rifle and using it to fire one bullet that kills Charlie Kirk.
If you can think of a legislation that would. I think you just answered that you said your grandfather's your grandfather's old rifle.
So, look, perhaps it should have been in a safer place.
Do you know where it was? There should be rules. Hang on.
There should be rules as it relates to people, young people in the house who can have possession of guns.
There are a whole lot of things that we can talk about as it relates to sensible gun control and rules and laws around guns.
And so, you know, I don't know the circumstances in his home. I just I do know that that it was a conservative MAGA family, a gun loving family.
And so perhaps if we didn't have more guns than people in the United States and our gun laws weren't so lax, perhaps we could prevent a whole lot of these deaths.
You know, you're in the UK all over Europe, all over different continents and and different countries in the world.
Everybody has mental health issues. Everyone has problems. But you know what they don't have as easy access to guns as Americans do and as many guns as Americans do.
And so that is the only difference in this. And so to me and to most sensible people in this country and all over the world, it would it seems to us and me that perhaps if we got a handle on that, we could we too could be like like England.
We too could be like Italy. We too could be like even countries that are not a part of Europe. We too could be that way.
And do you think and do you think and do you think one of all right. And do you think one of the reasons why this shooter killed Charlie Kirk was because he didn't like his opinions.
Hmm. If Don Lemon. Thank you very much. I'll be run out of time. Don, you know what it's like in the news business.
Hospitals getting more over crowded. They're going to have to make some very tough choices about who gets an ICU. But that choice doesn't seem so tough to me. Vaccinated person having a heart attack. Yes. Come right on in. We'll take care of you. Unvaccinated guy who gobbled horse goo. Rest in peace, Weezy.
We need to speak out. We need to be courageous. They come after me all the time. Elon Musk and Donald Trump. They call me a criminal. They call me a traitor. Their mega minions online come after me.
Adam Schiff, you sneaky son of a bitch pencil neck wobbling. You're a snitch and prick watermelon head. They call you a cheat hanging with Edward Buck. That's serial killer creep.
Watermelon head. You're a filthy disgrace. Censures your scar wipe that sniveling grin from your face. Pencil neck crawling through the swamp rotten stink. You're a damn fool sinking fast in the drink.
Sneaky little stays at the standard hotel. Hiding your moves. The tale's starting to tell. Edward Buck's cash. You grab that shit tight. Serial killer shadow. You're screwed tonight.
Shady ass pardon. You pulled that scam. Setting up folks for that January 6 jam. Demonizing half the nation. You asshole clown. FISA bullshit. You fucked the system down. Durham's report blew your Russia lies apart. You bastard schemed broke the public's heart.
Pencil neck trembling with that Jan 6 post. Schiff you prick. Your corruption's exposed. Watermelon head. You're a filthy disgrace. Censures your scar wipe that sniveling grin from your face. Pencil neck crawling through the swamp rotten stink. You're a damn fool sinking fast in the drink.
Take a bow. You sleazy son of a bitch. Crowds got you pegged. You're a sniveling prick. Pencil neck snapping. Edward Buck's your ghost. Watermelon head. You're fucked coast to coast.
A liberal came to speak at University of Kentucky. They'd give an open mic like I just did to a conservative and had a discussion like this.
I certainly hope they would. No they wouldn't. Because speech is not a left-wing value. That's why Chuck Schumer went on the Senate floor yesterday and called for the censorship of a cable television program.
That is why they have to deploy shock troops called Antifa to go after everywhere I go. When I go to University of California Davis next week, there has to be 120 police officers because of the threats, the violent threats of liberals that want to disrupt our events.
There are no right-wing hecklers that come to events like this. Michael Knowles, Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, myself, Candice Owens, the 24/7, 365 armed security to prevent ourselves from the violent threats from the left.
And so I think it's rather clear there's one side that is trying to do everything they can to shut one side up and one side that's trying to open up the marketplace of ideas.
And I think that's rather self-evident. But I do want to thank you for coming here tonight and demonstrating.
I totally disagree with everything you just said. I don't discount that you've received death threats or anything like that.
So how about this? Public approval polls show that a majority of liberals do not believe the First Amendment is absolute. What do you have to say about that?
It's, I mean, you know, what's going on in Pennsylvania, just like we would ask what in the world is going on in Utah.
So anyway, go ahead. You know, an explosive device, a bomb was planted under a Fox 13 van news truck that was supposed to be detonated. It didn't go off, but they apprehended the suspects.
I want to say they were Pakistani or something like that, and they had all kinds of, you know, chemicals and weapons, weapons of mass destruction in their house and their house.
I mean, if you just you could just pass by this house and blink once and you would have missed it like, well, hold on.
Let's let's go back and understand that that that was in the immediate aftermath of Charlie Kirk being shot.
Right. So imagine somebody deciding opportunistically that they're going to blow up a news van while they're helping cover this other event.
And then they had multiple devices they had hoped to get away and then to other ones.
So certainly this wasn't intended to be a singular event with the blowing up of the news vehicle.
Well, I mean, right. But I mean, but I mean, here we were coming into the memorial.
There's I mean, a lot of people are scared right now to even attend this stuff. What do you have to say to people like that?
Well, you know, we're a big country. There's lots of different events. There's always threats.
I can imagine that there'll be pretty extreme security in place for the funeral.
Charlie Kirk, lots of dignitaries there, et cetera. But there have already been issues at memorial sites, people trying to attack them and take them down.
And the rhetoric of this divisive rhetoric continues.
You know, there's a there's a very strong contingent that is still saying that the shooter was justified or the people involved in this were justified in going after Charlie Kirk because of the way that he spoke and interacted with people who disagreed with them.
And so, as I said years ago, you know, everybody's going to have to pick a lane before this is over. And that's what that's what's really going on here right now.
Everybody's having to pick a lane and it's becoming more defined. You won't be able to ride the fence.
I pulled up I pulled up the picture here of what you sent me and you said, you know, really look at this and understand this and study this because this is what this is exactly where we're at, where we're at in this pyramid here.
And, you know, I feel now more than ever, we are even more divided and more polarized than we were even in 2020 all the way through 2024 like right now 2025 this especially with the Charlie Kirk assassination, we are more polarized than ever before.
Well, this is a polarizing event. All of the events of the last couple of years are defining each side in the battle.
And, of course, even what you're seeing there in that depiction that I sent you, I've tried to mention this over the last, you know, couple of weeks even before the Charlie Kirk assassination.
This is where we're at in this conflict.
People who are losing their grip on society because Trump is in office, they're losing their ability to cause America to go to Civil War.
Where we're more evenly divided, people are going to a conservative side in droves.
Before Charlie Kirk's assassination, that was already happening and it was becoming clearer and clearer that mega was not going away. Even people inside President Trump's White House and camp were six, eight months ago trying to throttle the mega movement and the people pushing a mega environment.
As though it was done over with, we're no longer supporting it back during the campaign, same thing.
And President Trump hasn't backed off. So who are these people listening to? They think they're running the mega movement. They're running President Trump and that's just not true.
President Trump's his own man and make America great again is as strong or stronger than ever and Charlie Kirk was an example of that. So taking out Charlie Kirk hasn't stopped the mega movem