Blake Neff on Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and the Assassination of Charlie Kirk

[00:00] You were sort of instrumental in pushing

[00:02] the envelope of what was acceptable to

[00:04] [music] say on the right.

[00:05] >> I support maximal free speech. I have

[00:08] never once said YouTube should ban

[00:10] Candace.

[00:11] >> Aren't we dealing with actual

[00:12] defamation?

[00:13] >> She is a malicious, [music] hateful,

[00:15] dishonest, destructive actor in American

[00:18] life.

[00:19] >> Is it just fame, clicks, likes, money?

[00:21] >> She wants the person who killed Charlie

[00:24] to get away with it. Tucker has extended

[00:26] [music]

[00:26] maximum grace to Candace Owens. Tucker

[00:30] was a benefactor to me, but Charlie was

[00:31] a benefactor to me, [music] too. Tucker

[00:33] has done things that are indefensible.

[00:35] >> He is siding with some of the worst

[00:37] voices in the country right now.

[00:39] >> The last communication I had with Tucker

[00:41] was Tucker just [music] privately, can

[00:42] you ask your brother to just stop

[00:44] pushing this Candace stuff?

[00:45] >> Is all of this the result of the effort

[00:48] to bring more speech [music] to the

[00:50] public square?

[00:55] Mike Nef.

[00:56] >> Yes.

[00:56] >> Thank you for being on the show. No,

[00:57] >> thank you for inviting me.

[00:58] >> You were standing 20 feet from Charlie

[01:00] Kirk when he was assassinated at UVU. In

[01:03] the weeks that followed, you along with

[01:06] Andrew Kulvet, Charlie's longtime friend

[01:08] and spokesperson and producer, emerged

[01:11] as the host of the Charlie Kirk show.

[01:13] >> Well, we don't use that title. We're

[01:16] still producers of that show. There's

[01:18] only one host, but a lot of people want

[01:21] they still want to hear Charlie's voice.

[01:23] They still want to have something that's

[01:27] speaking to what Charlie spoke about.

[01:30] And Andrew and I and everyone else would

[01:32] admit we are not Charlie remotely, even

[01:35] us combined. But I think there's a lot

[01:37] of people who uh they they take comfort

[01:39] from the show continuing, at least for

[01:42] the time being, and trying trying to

[01:45] give voice to the things that he cared

[01:46] about. and we do our best in that

[01:49] regard.

[01:49] >> How do you

[01:52] the news continues you know things are

[01:55] happening today that weren't happening

[01:57] when Charlie was here or things have are

[01:59] happening today that are an evolution of

[02:01] the things that happened with when

[02:03] Charlie was here and therefore your

[02:06] perspective on it if Charlie were with

[02:08] us today even his perspective on it may

[02:10] be different than what his perspective

[02:11] was uh before his murder. How do you

[02:14] decide on a day-to-day basis what is

[02:17] sort of Charlie's perspective on history

[02:20] as it unfolds?

[02:21] >> Well, one thing you'll see a lot of a

[02:23] lot of people will claim extremely

[02:25] aggressively this is what Charlie would

[02:28] do here. And I think one part of being

[02:29] honest is we try to be frank about some

[02:33] degree of uncertainty that we one thing

[02:37] that's great about Charlie is because he

[02:38] was a good leader because he was a good

[02:40] uh

[02:42] because he was a responsible thinker be

[02:44] he had good habits. He you can learn a

[02:47] lot from just how Charlie approached

[02:49] different issues. The fact that he

[02:51] talked to a variety of people the fact

[02:52] he didn't lose his head if something

[02:55] upset him. There there's ways he went

[02:56] about it. So one, we can look to that

[02:58] and two, we we just try to be frank

[02:59] about it. So as an example of one that's

[03:02] been a tough issue, uh the Iran war,

[03:04] Charlie was very vocally against regime

[03:07] change in Iran. He was definitely even

[03:10] against the bombings that we did a few

[03:13] months before his death. And I can say

[03:16] pretty confidently that he would have

[03:18] been arguing strongly against President

[03:20] Trump doing the intervention he's since

[03:22] done. And we've been frank about all of

[03:24] that. What we've also said is Charlie

[03:28] was never a person who would, for lack

[03:30] of a better term, crash out if something

[03:32] happened that he didn't care for. And so

[03:34] we've tried to use as an example the

[03:36] bombings last uh a year ago as an

[03:40] example to look towards where Charlie

[03:41] argued against escalation and when

[03:44] President Trump did the one bombing

[03:47] strike and then sought an off-ramp, he

[03:49] praised it. He didn't aggressively pout

[03:52] that certain things he didn't want

[03:53] happened anyway. He tried to praise a

[03:56] path that he liked. And so we've said

[03:59] that is the most recent evidence we have

[04:01] of how Charlie would behave. We know

[04:04] that he didn't like regime change. We

[04:05] also know he liked the Trump

[04:07] administration and wanted it to succeed.

[04:10] What might he do? And we've speculated

[04:12] on that that he would probably be urging

[04:15] some way to get a peaceful resolution to

[04:17] this. He would be arguing against

[04:19] additional escalation. But we're always

[04:21] frank that this is our best guess about

[04:24] what Charlie would do because as time

[04:27] passes, we do it further away from the

[04:30] living memor of what Charlie did. And

[04:34] one of his strengths was that he was a

[04:36] person who tried to learn and evolve and

[04:38] react to things. He was not just cast in

[04:41] amber at age 18 and he would be the

[04:44] exact same in his response to

[04:46] everything. And so we just tried to be

[04:48] frank about that. And then we we try to

[04:49] play as clips when we're able to as

[04:51] well. And

[04:53] we we do our best. And I think that

[04:57] that's our moral obligation to the

[04:59] memory of Charlie. And

[05:02] it's not always what some people want to

[05:04] hear because some people want a above

[05:07] all just a useful tool to use against

[05:10] other people in their own beefs more or

[05:13] less.

[05:13] >> Yeah. claiming Charlie um as the sort of

[05:17] avatar for any person's perspective at

[05:20] any given moment has become something of

[05:22] a national pastime on the right and a

[05:24] lot of people are claiming uh Charlie or

[05:27] invoking Charlie as a way of attacking

[05:32] Charlie's organization, Charlie's

[05:33] family, Charlie's inner circle. You

[05:36] found yourself in the in the latter days

[05:38] of Charlie's life being firmly part of

[05:41] that inner circle. I mean, you were

[05:42] there at UVU because Char at Charlie's

[05:45] invitation, you traveled with Charlie to

[05:47] be there uh and to support him in that

[05:49] moment.

[05:50] Who is the inner circle? Who are the

[05:53] people who can credibly claim uh to have

[05:56] had Charlie's ear or to or to have um

[06:00] had access to Charlie's perspective in

[06:01] those last days? Well, so even even

[06:04] inner circle

[06:07] it's not necessarily a term I would like

[06:10] I want to answer this very carefully.

[06:12] Charlie was a person who spoke to a lot

[06:14] of people and there were conversations I

[06:16] myself was not a part of. So I don't

[06:18] want to say who he was talking to the

[06:21] last day of his life cuz he was often a

[06:23] private person who had private

[06:24] communications. What I have said and

[06:26] sometimes people will say they'll attack

[06:28] me. They'll say, "Uh, Blake comes out

[06:30] here and says he was Charlie's best

[06:32] friend." I don't think I've ever

[06:33] described myself as Charlie's best

[06:34] friend. And if I did, that was a mistake

[06:36] because I wasn't. First of all,

[06:37] Charlie's best friend was Erica's wife,

[06:40] and that's how he was. And also, I tried

[06:43] to just be frank about what my role was.

[06:45] I was a person who worked with Charlie

[06:47] every day. I was a person who spoke with

[06:50] Charlie every day except for Shabbat

[06:52] where he was in communicado.

[06:54] >> How How dare you? That's [clears throat]

[06:55] >> exactly. So I I worked with him

[06:57] extensively. I saw how he approached a

[07:01] lot of issues and I was a person that he

[07:04] put some trust in on important stuff and

[07:07] I think that gives me a good amount of

[07:09] insight into what his character was,

[07:12] what his values were, how he thought.

[07:15] Even though I didn't know him nearly as

[07:16] long as a lot of people, which I've been

[07:18] frank about. I only started working with

[07:19] him October 2022. So I didn't even know

[07:22] him for three years. I've only lived in

[07:24] Arizona since May of 23. So I only lived

[07:28] in the same city as him for a little

[07:30] over two years. So I didn't work with

[07:34] him as long as a lot of people. So what

[07:36] I would say when you if you want to use

[07:38] the term inner circle, I would look to

[07:39] who are the people that Charlie was

[07:41] around for the longest time or the most

[07:44] time. And he worked with Tyler Ber who

[07:47] runs Turning Point Action. That's the

[07:49] guy who got Charlie to move Turning

[07:51] Point down to Arizona. He worked with

[07:53] him very closely on a ton of stuff. He

[07:55] helped lead Turning Point USA before he

[07:56] went to action. Andrew created the

[08:00] Charlie Kirk show with him. Worked with

[08:02] him every single day. Worked with him

[08:04] very extensively.

[08:05] Uh I think of other people like Justin

[08:09] Strife was at Turning Point a very long

[08:10] time. Andrew Cipher was at Turning Point

[08:12] a very long time. One of Charlie's

[08:15] talents is that so many people found him

[08:18] such a great leader, they wanted to keep

[08:20] working for him and he would cultivate

[08:21] them. And so there are a lot of people

[08:23] who were around Charlie for a long time

[08:26] and whom he trusted. There were but a

[08:29] world that I want to speak to that I

[08:30] don't know as well. He had donors who

[08:33] supported him for a very long time and

[08:35] he spoke with those people and sought

[08:37] advice from them and that wasn't a world

[08:38] that I was as involved in. And so I

[08:40] don't want to say I can define who

[08:42] Charlie's inner circle was because I was

[08:44] in a part of his life. And I think I

[08:46] played a very important role in his

[08:48] work, but I didn't have this panopticon

[08:51] view of everything that was happening in

[08:52] it. After Andrew Breitbart died on the

[08:54] one-year anniversary,

[08:56] some of his pals wrote commemorative

[08:59] pieces to sort of memorialize him. And I

[09:02] wrote a piece for Breitbart.com that

[09:04] year. And and that's one of the things

[09:05] that I said. It's like I I was close

[09:07] enough to Andrew Breitbart to know how

[09:10] close I wasn't to Andrew Breitbart. Like

[09:12] I I know exactly where I fit in the in

[09:15] the Breitbart community, you know, and

[09:18] >> uh and like Charlie, Andrew was

[09:21] coalitional.

[09:22] >> Andrew, if Andrew met a person on an

[09:24] airplane, I found this about a lot of

[09:26] celebrities, by the way. If you sat next

[09:28] to Andrew Breitbart on on an airplane

[09:30] flying from Los Angeles to uh Washington

[09:33] DC, at the end of the flight, you would

[09:35] be like the president of the United

[09:37] States on the last day of his term. You

[09:39] know, the the morning security briefing

[09:42] comes in and they're like, "Mr.

[09:43] President, the we've traced the file

[09:45] material in the back of a Subaru

[09:47] crossing the border from Oh, look at the

[09:49] time, Mr. President. It's time uh it's

[09:50] been a pleasure serving with you, sir."

[09:52] And you'd be like, "No, no, no. What

[09:53] what's going to happen to the file

[09:54] material?" I said, "Oh, Mr. president,

[09:56] we got to get you on Air Force One and

[09:57] send you back to Texas. You know, uh

[10:01] that's how it would be if you got off a

[10:02] pl a conversation with somebody like

[10:04] Charlie or Andrew Breitbart or one of

[10:06] these uh one of these sort of coalition

[10:08] larger than-l life guys. You feel like

[10:11] you're instantly inner circle because

[10:13] they they make you feel that you're part

[10:15] of their inner circle. That's part of

[10:17] their gift. Their gift is to build

[10:18] coalition. Their their gift is to give

[10:20] people access. And it's actually very

[10:23] difficult with that kind of person

[10:26] because if with a normal person you

[10:27] start at one and you've reached inner

[10:29] circlehood when you get to seven with

[10:31] those sorts of guys you start at six

[10:33] >> and you may not be inner circle true

[10:34] inner circle until you're at like nine.

[10:36] >> The inner circle is going to be

[10:38] somebody's wife. The inner circle is

[10:39] going to be someone's closest and

[10:41] longest. Right. It just it speaks to

[10:43] what a immense life he lived that it

[10:47] seemed that first of all the sheer

[10:49] number of people who not just knew him

[10:52] but were specifically thankful to him

[10:54] for something he'd done on their behalf.

[10:56] That there are lawmakers who would say

[10:58] Charlie he didn't just endorse me but he

[11:02] he fought for me and he you know when my

[11:05] campaign was was struggling he he he

[11:07] delivered something for me. He fought

[11:09] for this piece of legislation I cared

[11:11] about. He spoke up when this needed to

[11:14] happen. There there's so many or people

[11:16] in the admin, people who came forward

[11:17] and say, "I think I got this job in the

[11:19] admin because Charlie fought for me to

[11:21] get in get an appointment." And those

[11:24] are not people who are cabinet level.

[11:27] There are there are subc cabinet level

[11:28] people. There's people whose resumes I

[11:30] sent to Charlie and he met them and was

[11:32] really impressed and said, "Oh, we need

[11:33] to get this person in." And he was

[11:35] always he was he was a very hard worker

[11:37] and especially a very disciplined

[11:39] worker. And so there's just so many

[11:41] people he had a positive impact on. And

[11:45] getting back to your inner circle thing

[11:46] that there's so many people he

[11:51] sought advice from that he worked with

[11:53] that he valued their perspective on. And

[11:58] you might say maybe a normal person had

[12:00] maybe you you could say maybe he had 25

[12:03] people that he could go to on a level of

[12:05] trust that most of us might assign to

[12:08] three people.

[12:08] >> And that's just part of what a big life

[12:10] he lived. What a tremendous person he

[12:12] was.

[12:12] >> There there is a criticism here though.

[12:14] You know I I've observed before most

[12:18] people's great strength and their great

[12:19] weakness are found in the same quality.

[12:21] Right. It's the very fact of Charlie's

[12:24] co coalitional

[12:26] nature that he wanted to bring people

[12:28] together that he wanted to invest in

[12:29] people that he he wanted to make a

[12:31] strong movement that could actually

[12:33] achieve political ends uh and that to

[12:36] that end he embraced

[12:39] people who would may disagree with one

[12:41] another. He embraced uh and and he he

[12:43] would find a thing with which he agreed

[12:45] with you and he would and he would pull

[12:46] you in. And when he found someone in the

[12:49] movement trying to pull away, he would

[12:51] make a a personal effort to intercede to

[12:53] go find that person to again find those

[12:55] points of agreement and bring them back.

[12:56] That is Charlie's great strength. That's

[12:58] what made him. And yet on the other

[13:00] side, Charlie did die defending a lot of

[13:03] people uh who ended up subsequent to

[13:07] Charlie's murder revealing themselves to

[13:10] be far worse than I think maybe Charlie

[13:13] believed them to be. And I would even

[13:15] say far worse than people tried to show

[13:17] Charlie that some of them may have been.

[13:18] >> Yes. And

[13:19] >> at the time

[13:21] >> uh Tyler Berer who runs Turning Point

[13:23] Action, he had a very good uh a tweet he

[13:26] did around the time of the one-year

[13:27] anniversary. And he he basically spoke

[13:30] to that that Charlie was a a very

[13:33] generous and giving kind person building

[13:35] that coalition and that there were

[13:37] people who would take advantage of that.

[13:40] And sometimes it's just take advantage

[13:42] of try to get yourself more famous. the

[13:44] mundane one. But the darker version of

[13:46] that is people who may have, I guess,

[13:50] secretly envied Charlie or hated Charlie

[13:53] or really not liked what he was doing,

[13:55] but they saw that he was a formidable

[13:57] figure and so it was better to have a

[14:00] fake alliance with him or something.

[14:02] >> Uh those are aspects that come into play

[14:05] and it could even be the case that as

[14:07] long as Charlie was alive, it was never

[14:08] going to be a problem. But once Charlie

[14:11] was gone and was not useful to them

[14:14] alive, it was more useful to them to

[14:17] attack and tear apart his legacy and

[14:19] exploit it. And sadly, yeah, we've seen

[14:23] some people do that. And

[14:27] it's honestly one of the most evil

[14:29] things I have ever seen in my entire

[14:31] life. And I don't I don't use that

[14:34] lightly. There's so many political

[14:37] debates we have that are morally

[14:38] inflicted. And you have to try very hard

[14:41] to remember this other person has a

[14:45] point of view and like they think

[14:46] they're doing the right thing on this,

[14:47] but they maybe have very disordered

[14:49] thoughts on what is right and wrong.

[14:51] Like the life issue, for example, I'm

[14:52] very pro-life. And even those people,

[14:56] you try to think there must be some

[14:58] reason they think this is right when at

[14:59] least if they're being weak on it, which

[15:01] a lot of people are. But the stuff where

[15:04] people just aggressively

[15:07] lie and harass and especially the way

[15:11] they bully people who were close to

[15:13] Charlie, people who were present when

[15:14] Charlie was murdered

[15:16] >> is

[15:18] I really can't believe that at least the

[15:21] people leading this don't know exactly

[15:23] what they are doing.

[15:25] >> Ordinary people they can get a lot of

[15:26] weird ideas in their head and believe

[15:28] strange stuff. But I I have said

[15:31] repeatedly that I I I strongly believe

[15:34] Candace Owens deep down knows, for

[15:37] example, that Tyler Robinson pulled the

[15:40] trigger and killed Charlie.

[15:42] >> Well, certainly did.

[15:43] >> She

[15:45] wants the person who killed Charlie to

[15:47] get away with it because

[15:50] maybe deep down she hated Charlie

[15:52] himself. She clearly deeply hates Erica

[15:54] and she knows it will hurt Erica if

[15:56] Charlie's killer is not punished.

[15:59] And I think on on a deep level she must

[16:02] know that at a minimum she has to know

[16:04] that a lot of the other people she has

[16:06] harassed are entirely innocent and she

[16:09] does it anyway. And you can actually

[16:11] tell from the way they behave because

[16:14] think about what is alleged in a

[16:15] conspiracy theory. the conspiracy

[16:17] theory, if you're going after our camera

[16:20] guy or Charlie's chief of staff or

[16:22] anyone else, is that they have the

[16:26] ability to have someone murdered and

[16:28] cover it up and get away with it

[16:30] scot-free. And your reaction to that is

[16:33] not to be this is a powerfully evil

[16:36] person and a terrifying person, very

[16:38] ominous. No, they bully them like

[16:40] they're a loser in high school.

[16:43] >> They they make fun of them. They give

[16:45] them goofy nicknames. They know that

[16:48] this person did nothing wrong, but they

[16:50] think it's fun to poke at a weak person

[16:54] who isn't able to fight back. Maybe

[16:56] because they have more to lose if they

[17:00] do it, because they don't have the

[17:01] platform that you do, because you just

[17:04] think they won't. It It's so obvious to

[17:07] me that on a on a psychological level,

[17:10] they know the people they're going at

[17:11] after did nothing wrong.

[17:14] or to the extent they did anything

[17:16] wrong, just disagree with them on some

[17:17] political issue and they want to

[17:21] target them as a result.

[17:23] >> Do you think that it's we're speaking

[17:25] about a fairly broad cohort of people

[17:26] now because it's become something of a

[17:28] cottage industry to

[17:30] >> I think I think there was an NBC news

[17:31] piece that suggested like 30 people have

[17:35] ma make a full-time living off of this

[17:37] and that's maybe just the people on air.

[17:39] If you think about how many people might

[17:41] make a living supporting a an operation

[17:43] like Candace's, even more then. But

[17:45] yeah, because there's the big shows, but

[17:47] then there's random Tik Tok influencers

[17:49] you and I have never heard of who

[17:51] actually still are making a full-time

[17:53] living because any random reel about

[17:55] this can get millions of views.

[17:58] >> So, is it as simple as selfserving

[18:01] cynicism? Uh, is it just, in other

[18:04] words, is it just fame, clicks, likes,

[18:06] money you think that's driving this, or

[18:09] is it something deeper?

[18:10] >> I I don't think it's just that. I think

[18:12] it's a lot of it is that. Maybe even the

[18:15] primary thing for some, but

[18:18] I don't think it's the only thing. So

[18:20] again, to use Candace because I' I've

[18:22] certainly spoken explicitly about her

[18:23] before that I think

[18:27] I think there I think she's basically

[18:29] the most profoundly narcissistic person

[18:31] I have ever seen in my entire life. And

[18:34] I think this manifests in a few ways.

[18:36] First, I think

[18:39] recall that Candace did events for

[18:40] Turning Point in the past. Even after

[18:42] she left Turning Point as an employee,

[18:43] for example, when Charlie did events,

[18:47] uh, he would do those campus events in

[18:49] 23, early 24, you know, the whatever

[18:51] tour they were calling it. And he would

[18:54] do events about west of the Mississippi

[18:56] that were a close flight from Phoenix.

[18:58] And she would do events east of the

[18:59] Mississippi. And that was the branding

[19:01] of the tours. You'd see Charlie events

[19:02] and you'd see Candace events. And

[19:04] eventually she stopped doing those. But

[19:07] I think after Charlie died, I think she

[19:09] was narcissistic enough that she could

[19:12] in her head convince herself, I did

[19:15] events on par with Charlie. I was

[19:19] Charlie's equal, his his second in

[19:20] command really within the organization.

[19:23] I think she I think she actually

[19:24] psychologically convinced herself that

[19:26] what the next thing that was going to

[19:27] happen was Turning Point was going to

[19:29] get on the phone and say, "Candice, we

[19:30] need you. Can you take over Turning

[19:32] Point now?"

[19:32] >> Yeah.

[19:33] >> I think on some level that is what she

[19:35] thought. And when that didn't happen,

[19:38] she experienced it as a huge ego injury.

[19:40] And the only way she can cope with that

[19:42] is Turning Point is completely taken

[19:45] over. It is the enemy and I will destroy

[19:47] it. I think she clearly despises Erica

[19:50] on a personal level.

[19:52] >> Well, not according to John Mappen, who

[19:53] says that she's showing nothing but

[19:54] Christian love.

[19:55] >> Nothing but Christian love. Uh I would

[19:59] strongly dispute that on a few levels.

[20:01] She's and this is actually I want to

[20:03] push back on that on more detail cuz

[20:05] sometimes and this is a thing she does.

[20:07] She'll they'll try to rewrite the past.

[20:08] She will or her followers will and

[20:10] she'll kind of put her stamp of approval

[20:11] on it. So, as an example, one thing I've

[20:14] seen people say a lot is that Candace

[20:17] was entirely pro Erica until until Erica

[20:20] lied to her. What whatever she claims

[20:22] some misruth was that she was totally on

[20:24] her side until they met in December, for

[20:26] example. Well, that's obviously not

[20:28] true. As an example, in I think

[20:30] September 30th of 25, so not even 3

[20:34] weeks after Charlie's death, she does a

[20:36] segment on her show where she says the

[20:39] evidence points towards this being there

[20:42] signs this is a reicside, which is the

[20:44] removal of a she finds it this way. The

[20:46] removal of a king to put in a new leader

[20:49] that that king wouldn't have wanted.

[20:53] Well, who is the leader of Turning

[20:55] Point? At that point it has been

[20:56] announced that Erica Kirk is the CEO of

[20:58] Turning Point. So you are saying Charlie

[21:00] was killed to install his wife whom he

[21:03] would have never wanted in that

[21:04] position. That is an attack on Erica.

[21:07] And she would do those needling indirect

[21:10] ones all of the time. And it was very

[21:12] obvious what she meant by this. But she

[21:15] is a cany actor, a mean girl if you

[21:18] will. And one of those things mean girls

[21:19] are good at doing is being I'm totally

[21:21] on your side person that I hate. I'm

[21:23] 100% behind you. person I despise with

[21:26] every fiber of my being. And if you're

[21:28] looking for this, it's it's not hard to

[21:30] see,

[21:31] >> but some people do not want to see it.

[21:34] And it was very obvious from that point

[21:37] it was going to steadily escalate in

[21:38] hostility towards Erica. Or when she

[21:40] says things, they all betrayed him.

[21:43] Who's they all? Who's included under all

[21:46] if not his wife who is now the head of

[21:49] the organization you are attacking?

[21:51] That sort of thing. People they

[21:55] they misrepresent what she did and she

[21:56] very much takes advantage of that in

[21:59] order to target people and hurt people

[22:00] and then try to rewrite the past later

[22:02] and she's done that over and over. Yeah.

[22:04] So, and then John Matthys says nothing

[22:05] but Christian love. She made a somewhat

[22:08] abortive it was eight parts or nine

[22:10] parts that bride of Charlie series that

[22:15] it was very funny cuz she presents it as

[22:17] a documentary series and then it's

[22:18] totally just normal episodes of her show

[22:20] and structure. It doesn't reach any

[22:22] terminating point at there's no buildup

[22:24] to anything. It's just, oh, let's put

[22:26] her on the cover of the episode and do

[22:28] really salacious going nowhere stuff

[22:30] suggesting she's a human trafficker,

[22:33] suggesting she's a child groomer. She

[22:36] does all of that and she's continuing to

[22:38] do all of that. So, they recently went

[22:40] after her event in Idaho where she spoke

[22:43] to a Christian high school about

[22:46] Christian stuff, about her husband's

[22:47] legacy, and it was a great event. and

[22:50] she's trying to plant all these weird

[22:51] seeds. So, she's she they're speaking to

[22:54] an underage audience.

[22:58] The only reason to use a line like that

[23:00] is you want to suggest that she's like a

[23:02] sexual predator. That is a hateful thing

[23:05] to do to Erica because there is zero

[23:07] basis for it. It is a lie. It is an

[23:11] absolutely foul thing to do. And on top

[23:14] of that, Charlie did events for high

[23:16] schoolers all of the time. That's why we

[23:17] have Club America. That's what we had.

[23:19] Before that, it was TPU USA, but high

[23:21] school chapters. And there's Charlie

[23:23] tweets bragging about the growth of high

[23:25] school chapters. There's Charlie tweets

[23:27] bragging about events that we've done at

[23:29] high schools. He would talk about, oh,

[23:31] we're going to win the youth by winning

[23:32] high school campuses.

[23:35] But you, they will just throw all of

[23:37] that out for a lie. that that can only

[23:40] be explained by a hateful desire to

[23:43] destroy specific people who were close

[23:46] with Charlie and a specific desire to

[23:49] destroy Charlie's legacy. And like

[23:50] that's the only way to explain it.

[23:52] >> Period.

[23:52] >> You know, you talk about the narcissism.

[23:54] It's obviously on display. One of the

[23:55] things that I've heard Candace say is

[23:57] that she thought that after Charlie's

[23:59] murder, she would get a call from the

[24:02] FBI saying, "We want to join you in your

[24:05] investigation into your friend's murder.

[24:09] To think that federal law enforcement is

[24:12] going to join a podcaster in the

[24:15] podcasters's investigation of a murder

[24:18] is to suggest that the podcasters

[24:20] investigation is the actual

[24:21] investigation.

[24:22] >> Yeah. Which I will note it it's just

[24:24] it's just not. So, let's say you wanted

[24:29] I'll flag as an example that after the

[24:32] shooting happened, I talked to someone

[24:34] on our team who said before this

[24:35] happened, there was a lot of weird stuff

[24:37] that I saw on social media and they sent

[24:40] us a Tik Tok and you've probably seen

[24:41] it. It's this it's playing very ominous

[24:43] music and it says like something's going

[24:46] to h I can't remember exactly what it

[24:47] said, but something's going to happen at

[24:48] UVU and it's this sort of

[24:51] >> uh I I want to say hermaphroditic

[24:53] looking person. And so they might have

[24:54] been trans adjacent and it's playing

[24:57] ominous music and it's them looking to

[24:58] the side like, "Oh, I know something's

[25:00] happening." And that is an incredibly

[25:02] creepy video to watch after the

[25:04] assassination. So we had that sent to

[25:07] the FBI

[25:08] >> and and other stuff.

[25:10] >> You didn't have them sent to Candace

[25:11] though.

[25:12] >> No, we didn't have to investigation. I

[25:13] would I what I would follow up on that

[25:14] is so we had that sent to the FBI and

[25:16] we've now seen some people have

[25:17] publicized that they actually did do

[25:19] some search warrants related to some of

[25:21] these things and in truth I would love

[25:24] to see more I I think it would help

[25:26] people a lot if the FBI bothered to come

[25:28] out and say here is our 60page report we

[25:31] looked at we found we identified the

[25:33] people who posted these things figure

[25:35] out who they were interviewed them

[25:37] checked their social media files and

[25:38] even if it's just these people marinated

[25:41] in transgender friendly forums that said

[25:45] it'd be great if Charlie got shot. It'd

[25:46] be great if something happened to him,

[25:48] but we have no evidence they knew a

[25:50] shooting was going to happen. I think

[25:51] that would help people. And it does seem

[25:54] they looked at this. I would love it if

[25:56] they looked at it more. That's all

[25:57] >> it would help a small subset of people.

[25:59] >> It would, but that's all set up to say

[26:02] I don't think Candace has ever talked

[26:04] about any of these videos. So, it's like

[26:06] Candace, if you really are this great

[26:08] investigator, why you love this? She

[26:11] loves to post, hey, identify who this

[26:13] person was at UVU. Oh, this guy in a

[26:16] maroon shirt. This guy in this hat. This

[26:18] guy who's cracking his wrist or

[26:19] something and I think it was a a signal.

[26:22] She's never said, "Hey, can you identify

[26:24] who these people were who were posting

[26:25] creepy videos on social media?" Never

[26:28] once. Never once. And there's never been

[26:33] any payoff to a single thing. her

[26:35] investigation has been going a year. Has

[26:37] a literal single thing come out in that

[26:40] span that has changed anyone's thoughts

[26:42] on anything? I don't think so.

[26:43] >> Well, this is one of my concerns. You

[26:44] you say that transparency would change

[26:47] some people's minds if the FBI, for

[26:48] example, uh released some of those

[26:51] findings. It would change some people's

[26:53] minds, and it's a and it's a net

[26:55] positive whether it changes anyone's

[26:57] minds or not. Transparency, generally

[26:59] speaking, is a good thing.

[27:01] The the problem is you can't change the

[27:03] minds of the conspiracy theorist. Their

[27:05] mind is not available to be changed.

[27:08] >> I think maybe not change its mind, but I

[27:10] think it might,

[27:12] >> as the saying goes, nature abhores the

[27:14] vacuum.

[27:14] >> I think a lot of the conspiracy energy.

[27:17] I've mentioned this before. It's come

[27:19] from that Tyler Robinson gets arrested

[27:23] and then it's taken over a year and in

[27:27] that span we had a preliminary hearing

[27:29] that lasted about a week. We had an

[27:31] additional hearing uh on early September

[27:35] and we aren't at a trial. We haven't set

[27:37] the trial date yet. According to a legal

[27:39] expert we talked to that trial date

[27:40] might not be until 2028.

[27:43] And

[27:45] I think if he had been going on trial in

[27:49] December,

[27:51] I think a lot of the people basically

[27:53] have this nervous energy. They need to

[27:55] see things happen. They need to see the

[27:57] wheel of justice turn. And our wheel of

[27:59] justice turns so slowly that the nervous

[28:02] energy goes somewhere else and they end

[28:04] up on watching podcasts that say, "It's

[28:07] all a lie. It's a cover up." And that

[28:09] kind of latches onto their brain and

[28:12] implants stuff. So, I don't want to say

[28:13] it would change people's minds, but I do

[28:15] think there's a sense that people can be

[28:17] vulnerable to this and liars are able to

[28:22] take advantage of that vulnerability due

[28:25] to the lack of a clear of of a quick

[28:28] progress towards real justice.

[28:30] >> Yeah. One of the things that I fear is

[28:31] that when the time actually does arrive

[28:34] for this trial to happen, Tyler Robinson

[28:36] will be offered and will and will accept

[28:38] a plea deal. that he hasn't accepted a

[28:40] plea here to four because his attorneys

[28:44] felt that they might be able to get the

[28:45] death penalty dismissed as being an

[28:46] option and and other sort of legal

[28:49] considerations. But that when push comes

[28:51] to shove, he will take a plea deal. And

[28:53] by in taking a plea, the public will

[28:56] never get to see the case against Tyler

[28:59] Robinson that we would get to see if

[29:01] there were a trial. And that will only

[29:02] further exacerbate the problem of the

[29:04] conspiracy.

[29:05] >> Yeah. And it's so easy for these people

[29:07] to just make up lies. Yeah,

[29:10] >> they can they'll say, "Oh, who who did

[29:12] they threaten? Who did they pay off?"

[29:14] And there's never any evidence for this

[29:16] sort of thing. Or they just make up

[29:18] evidence. They they recklessly and

[29:21] aggressively lie. And they would do

[29:24] that. Of course, as you say, just like

[29:26] transparency wouldn't change people's

[29:27] minds, a full trial also wouldn't change

[29:30] people's minds. And

[29:31] >> and we saw this with a preliminary

[29:32] hearing. They have Lance Twigs on camera

[29:35] saying, "Yeah, this person looks like

[29:37] Tyler Robinson. Tyler Robinson sent me

[29:40] this text message where he says, "I did

[29:43] it. He came to me in person and said, "I

[29:46] did it. I wish I hadn't done it." All

[29:49] these things. So, we have Lance Twig

[29:50] says these things. We have DNA evidence.

[29:53] We have a rifle that is owned by Tyler

[29:55] Robinson that is found at the scene and

[29:58] it has these engraved bullets. We found

[30:00] the engraving machine that would be able

[30:02] to make those engravings in his home.

[30:05] And here's footage of him walking

[30:07] around. There's his car. We can identify

[30:08] it because we can see the uh rims on the

[30:13] tires are rather uncommon. And on and on

[30:16] and on and people will say they

[30:18] basically produc they'll just say they

[30:20] they've produced almost no evidence.

[30:21] They can't conclusively show xyz. I have

[30:23] challenged people. Is there a person is

[30:26] there a murder case where you believe

[30:27] someone was guilty where they were not

[30:30] caught at the scene where you think

[30:33] someone where there's more evidence than

[30:35] in this case?

[30:36] >> Have weapon, have footage, have DNA,

[30:40] have confession, have confession number

[30:42] two, have confession number three, have

[30:44] roommate. Person was turned in turned

[30:47] themselves in before they were known as

[30:50] a suspect to law enforcement.

[30:53] There's

[30:55] quite literally I think there almost

[30:58] every type of evidence that could exist

[31:00] here does exist in this case.

[31:02] >> All conspiracy theories end up being

[31:04] this way that the that the proponent of

[31:07] the conspiracy theory has to start by

[31:11] setting aside all of the existing

[31:12] evidence.

[31:13] >> Yes. And start in in many cases starting

[31:15] with a conclusion they're going to have

[31:18] no matter what. that Charlie

[31:19] conspiracies start with Ian Carol the

[31:22] day of the shooting or either the day I

[31:25] don't want him to speak so either the

[31:26] day of or the following morning before

[31:28] even an arrest has been made saying

[31:31] clearly Israel was involved in this

[31:33] >> right

[31:34] >> and if you start from a conclusion that

[31:36] you were going to have no matter what

[31:38] that that's what so much modern

[31:39] conspiracy stuff starts with

[31:41] >> so back to your role in Charlie's life

[31:44] you know for those who don't know that

[31:46] role included you wrote for Charlie, you

[31:48] helped Charlie explore issues as a

[31:50] producer on his show. Uh your your

[31:52] background before coming to Charlie's

[31:54] show is being the headwriter of the

[31:56] Tucker Carlson show on Fox News

[31:58] >> for a number of years.

[31:59] >> Um which we can explore in more detail

[32:03] later, but to the extent that your job

[32:07] and you worked every day with Charlie

[32:09] was to help Charlie explore issues and

[32:12] develop language to help him communicate

[32:14] about those issues to the public. You

[32:19] obviously you don't know every

[32:20] conversation Charlie was having. You

[32:21] don't know every relationship that

[32:22] Charlie had, but you have a lot above

[32:26] average insight into how Charlie was

[32:28] thinking about issues at the time of his

[32:30] death.

[32:30] >> Sure.

[32:31] >> So many of these conspiracy theories as

[32:32] with so many conspiracy theories more

[32:34] broadly in Western history uh are about

[32:38] the Jews or about Israel in in modern

[32:40] times. Um, and obviously Charlie was

[32:43] engaged in uh some political evolution

[32:47] around uh his posture toward the state

[32:49] of Israel. Uh, Charlie was engaged in

[32:51] conflict

[32:53] with donors, some Christian, some Jewish

[32:56] around

[32:58] his relationship with Candace and his

[32:59] relationship with Tucker, who had both

[33:01] become uh, by the time of Charlie's

[33:03] death, I think fair to say, very

[33:05] skeptical uh, of America's relationship

[33:07] with Israel. I I think subsequent to

[33:10] that you can very fairly say that they

[33:12] both pedal in overt anti-semitism. You

[33:14] you don't you may or may not accept that

[33:17] um uh accept that assessment but you

[33:20] know I I don't think that there's

[33:23] >> I don't think that uh one can say as

[33:26] many things as Candace has said which

[33:28] are not all about the state of Israel. I

[33:30] mean all the way into blood labels Jews.

[33:33] Yeah. Yeah.

[33:34] and not, you know, if if the term

[33:36] anti-semitism doesn't apply to what

[33:38] Candace pedals in, then it has no

[33:39] meaning whatsoever. Um,

[33:42] and so Charlie was obviously engaged in

[33:45] this conflict. He was obviously engaged

[33:46] in this reassessment of his uh

[33:49] perspective on the USIsrael alliance.

[33:52] You were helping him uh build language

[33:55] around those issues and and explore

[33:57] those issues. You were even on, if I'm

[33:59] not mistaken, the phone call that

[34:00] Charlie had that much ado has been made

[34:02] about this phone call uh in which he

[34:05] spoke to uh

[34:08] >> who who there was a uh there was a rabbi

[34:11] he was friends with uh Rabbi Pesak I

[34:14] think his name was uh I don't want to

[34:16] get the name wrong um but that was a

[34:18] friend of his I think yeah I remember

[34:20] right now because I think that rabbi did

[34:22] an interview where he said I should

[34:24] speak about it and I have spoken about

[34:26] it a bit I canow elaborate on it. Of

[34:28] course,

[34:28] >> you were on the call.

[34:29] >> Oh, yes, I was on this call. So, uh I'll

[34:32] answer the the sort of big picture

[34:34] things. So, uh and then get to that

[34:36] call. So, yeah, Charlie, first of all,

[34:39] he wasn't evangelical. He spoke about

[34:42] this a lot that he'd been to the state

[34:44] of Israel and he so he said, "I really

[34:46] appreciated that I could go to the Holy

[34:48] Land. I could visit Christian holy sites

[34:50] and they were safe. They were cared for.

[34:53] they were not ruled by radical Islamists

[34:56] and

[34:58] he appreciated that a lot and then he

[34:59] also appreciated that Israel was a

[35:02] relatively free prosperous western

[35:05] country in contrast to a lot of that he

[35:07] spoke about this as reasons that he

[35:08] liked it. Now, as you say, where he had

[35:11] concerns was is Charlie,

[35:15] he did see he concerning signs he said

[35:17] that our foreign policy was too often

[35:22] maybe what you might say is like

[35:23] centered on stuff that would help Israel

[35:27] or that that basically that the

[35:28] relationship was asymmetrical, that we

[35:30] gave Israel more than we got out of it.

[35:33] And he was concerned about that and he

[35:35] but on the same time he was also very

[35:37] concerned and he saw this coming for

[35:39] years that there was a faction in

[35:42] America and a faction on the right that

[35:45] is conspiratorial about Israel and the

[35:47] Jews that is obsessed with them. So they

[35:51] just kind of fixate on that to the

[35:53] exclusion of everything else and they're

[35:55] they're just often outright hateful

[35:57] about it. And so what Charlie was very

[36:00] concerned about is he wanted it to be

[36:01] possible to

[36:05] criticize the nature of our relationship

[36:07] with Israel to say that relationship

[36:11] should the nature of it should change

[36:13] without hurtling off into

[36:17] everyone is a Zionist puppet. There's a

[36:20] Zionist conspiracy behind everything.

[36:22] The Jews control the entire planet. And

[36:25] he he would always call it not

[36:26] anti-semitism. He call it Jew hate, tamp

[36:28] down on Jew hate. And he would try he

[36:30] was trying to make that manageable. And

[36:32] one of the ways Charlie would do that is

[36:34] he would reach out to both sides. He

[36:35] would try to find common ground. He was

[36:37] also a guy who would try to

[36:40] stake out the way he would like things

[36:42] to go. So for example, at Student Action

[36:44] Summit in um 25, he has this panel with

[36:48] some students where he asks them how

[36:51] they feel about Israel and he tried to

[36:53] have a variety of perspectives. And some

[36:54] of those kids on that panel were pretty

[36:56] anti-Israel. And you can see Charlie

[36:58] trying to maybe you could say like build

[37:01] a helicopter pad that they could land on

[37:03] where he's saying so what we can agree

[37:05] on. And when he said when Charlie would

[37:07] sometimes say what we can all agree on,

[37:08] it's not necessarily that everyone 100%

[37:11] agrees on it, but he's sometimes hoping

[37:13] by articulating this and by making this

[37:15] such a reasonable common ground, I can

[37:18] get people to congregate towards it.

[37:20] >> It's aspirational.

[37:21] >> It's aspirational. And so he would say

[37:24] like we sometimes he would lay out for

[37:26] example that it's okay to criticize

[37:28] Benjamin Netanyahu. It's okay to

[37:29] criticize the Israeli government uh but

[37:32] it's not okay to just bash the Jewish

[37:34] people as a whole. He would say uh that

[37:39] we have agreement like oh maybe we you

[37:41] know we should change he would say like

[37:43] we agree like we you know maybe we

[37:44] should change our relationship with

[37:46] Israel. Maybe we shouldn't give them

[37:47] direct monetary funding anymore only

[37:49] moral support from now on. uh but we

[37:51] reject Jew hate. He would often say like

[37:53] our common ground like we reject Jew

[37:55] hatred in all of its forms and again

[37:57] it's aspirational to do that because

[37:59] there are clearly some people on the

[38:01] right who do not reject that in all its

[38:03] forms and there are some people who

[38:07] want to enable that and further that.

[38:10] And so that's what he was doing big

[38:12] picture and he was trying to learn more

[38:13] about it. Uh I remember one of the

[38:15] funnier messages I ever got from Charlie

[38:17] and this was well before he died. He he

[38:19] just asked me in this very funny way,

[38:21] Blake, why do people hate Jews? And he

[38:24] literally meant like, what are the

[38:25] anti-semitic tropes that they go to? And

[38:28] so I I I think I literally responded

[38:31] where to begin cuz there's so many of

[38:33] them out there, of course. But he also

[38:35] wanted to learn more about the conflict

[38:36] as an example. So when he died, I was

[38:39] reading this 600 700page book by Benny

[38:42] Morris called Righteous Victims, which

[38:44] is a history of the Arab uh Israeli

[38:46] conflict from all the way back when the

[38:48] Zionist movement starts in the 1800s to

[38:51] when the book was written about 2000.

[38:53] And I was reading it basically because

[38:56] one uh it appears that both uh Arabs and

[39:00] Israeli conservatives have criticized

[39:02] it. So I thought it was probably likely

[39:03] to have facts that would make both sides

[39:05] a little upset. And so it was probably

[39:07] at least a good approximation of a

[39:10] neutral point of view such as it was.

[39:12] And I just wanted to know more about it

[39:14] so I could educate Charlie if he had

[39:16] questions about it. And

[39:21] so that's the the the background that

[39:23] I'm learning more about this so I can

[39:24] teach Charlie more about it. He's trying

[39:26] to create this helicopter pad that the

[39:28] party so that the party doesn't just get

[39:30] ripped into because people are too

[39:34] angry ultimately about our relationship

[39:36] with a foreign nation state on the other

[39:38] side of the world. Uh the call you speak

[39:41] to that's just it's depressing that

[39:44] people have made so much of it because

[39:46] it's just a testament to how Charlie

[39:48] approached things that he took

[39:49] seriously. So Charlie is preparing for

[39:52] his biggest campus tour ever. There's

[39:54] going to be the most people there. He

[39:55] has the highest profile ever. There's

[39:57] going to be more people than ever trying

[39:59] to make a name for themselves just by

[40:02] dunking on him with a question, just by

[40:04] trying to get the better of him. There

[40:05] was that UNF America tour of libs who

[40:08] were talking about following him from

[40:11] event to event to try to get him on

[40:13] questions. And he thinks, well, what are

[40:15] we what are our most challenging

[40:17] questions going to be? And he would talk

[40:19] to them about me. So, one of the things

[40:20] he was always worried about was people

[40:22] would ask him, "Why won't you debate

[40:24] Nick Fuentes? What's the way I should

[40:25] answer that?" He was going back and

[40:27] forth with about how to answer that. And

[40:29] he'd been asked that question on every

[40:31] campus tour, yet it was still something

[40:33] he wanted to refine to have the best

[40:34] possible answer. So this call which I

[40:37] think uh that Rabbi Pesak was on it. Um

[40:43] there was uh another individual I won't

[40:45] name just because he's he's a private

[40:47] person but he was on this call. Uh like

[40:49] a friend of Charlie's. Uh I was on it. I

[40:52] believe uh Michael McCoy his assistant

[40:55] was in the call and I think Josh Hammer

[40:58] who was a friend of his was on that

[41:00] call. Uh I don't have a recording but he

[41:02] certainly talked to Josh Hammer a lot

[41:04] about that sort of thing. So, I think

[41:05] those

[41:06] >> Turk on the call.

[41:07] >> I'm not I I genuinely am not sure. Frank

[41:10] Turk was helping Charlie prepare.

[41:12] >> Um, [clears throat] so he was in Phoenix

[41:15] that day. We definitely prepared on some

[41:19] stuff with him that evening and I got

[41:20] dinner with him and then he also was uh

[41:23] on the flight with us to Oram, Utah. I

[41:27] don't remember specifically if he was on

[41:28] that call and that's just passage of

[41:30] time. That's uh but the call and one

[41:34] reason I don't remember every single

[41:36] facet of this call is this call was just

[41:38] a discussion of okay if I get asked

[41:41] questions about XYZ on our relationship

[41:44] with Israel how can I how can I frame

[41:47] this? How can I not put my foot in my

[41:49] mouth by saying the wrong thing? And

[41:53] that was the nature of this call. like

[41:55] how can and Charlie was a guy who I

[41:57] think it speaks to Charlie's uh

[42:01] leadership in coalition building that

[42:02] Charlie is the rare person who got

[42:04] attacked quite venomously and

[42:06] aggressively for both being a Zionist

[42:10] Jew shell whatever and as some people

[42:13] sometimes attacked him as an anti-semite

[42:15] and he got attacked from both ends and

[42:17] it's a testament to him among other

[42:19] things that he didn't crack into a

[42:22] thousand pieces under attacks that were

[42:24] in in incredibly bad faith from both

[42:26] sides because he

[42:29] absolutely was just not a hater. He was

[42:31] a patriot who wanted the best for

[42:33] America, the best for the conservative

[42:36] movement. And that was what guided

[42:39] everything he did. And that's what was

[42:42] going on in that call is that we're

[42:43] going to get a lot of questions about

[42:44] Israel. People are really worked up

[42:46] about it. They're really worked up about

[42:47] the Iran strikes. How should we talk

[42:49] about it? and he was always trying to

[42:52] chart out that it's okay for you guys to

[42:54] say you don't like Benjamin Netanyahu.

[42:56] It's okay for you guys to say you don't

[43:00] like how Israel's conducted the war in

[43:01] Gaza. And he he would talk about he

[43:03] didn't like it when he saw reports that

[43:05] this Christian church got damaged or

[43:07] destroyed or that these Christians were

[43:09] killed. He did complain about that

[43:12] certainly in private. I can't remember

[43:14] everything he said on the show, but he

[43:15] certainly would message people and say

[43:16] like this is a problem. And as it came

[43:18] out after the assassination, he'd sent a

[43:20] letter to Benjamin Netanyahu saying,

[43:23] "You guys have a severe PR problem in

[43:26] the US. I care about Israel and the

[43:28] Jewish people. I think you should make

[43:30] these adjustments to try to handle

[43:33] that." That was a private letter that he

[43:34] sent. This was not a public

[43:36] grandstanding thing that he did.

[43:38] >> Yeah. But it it was

[43:41] it was just Charlie in his element of

[43:43] trying to handle a difficult issue, not

[43:46] in an influencer way of how do I become

[43:48] maximally famous off of this? How do I

[43:51] get the most clicks off of this? It was

[43:53] in the I am a leader capacity. I am a

[43:56] really a statesman. This is what a

[43:57] statesman would do of how can I

[44:00] recognizing this problem try to resolve

[44:04] this problem get us through these the

[44:06] these rapids as it were without

[44:09] breaking our movement without breaking

[44:13] uh an administration that we want to

[44:15] succeed without breaking my principles

[44:17] those are those are kind of the three

[44:19] guiding things and I don't strongly

[44:22] remember specific things said on that

[44:24] call other than that that's what he was

[44:26] endeavoring to do that. We're going to

[44:28] get questions about actually as I as I

[44:31] talk I I some of more of it's coming

[44:32] back to me like I remember I think I was

[44:35] giving him advice and trying to remind

[44:36] him that like one of the like when if

[44:40] people were going to complain about Gaza

[44:41] an argument I would often give to

[44:43] Charlie is one of the things that's most

[44:46] important to remember and is often

[44:48] obscured is the situation in Gaza was

[44:51] getting better over time. It that

[44:53] doesn't you don't have to think it was

[44:54] ideal. you might want a very different

[44:56] thing, but that for example, Israel had

[44:58] a guest worker program for uh

[45:00] Palestinians in Gaza where they could go

[45:02] into Israel and do guest work. And they

[45:03] were expanding that program over time

[45:05] and you could make a lot of money doing

[45:06] that. It was like a good lifeline. It

[45:08] was kind of like letting in guest

[45:09] workers into America who send

[45:10] remittances home. That was expanding.

[45:13] The situation was getting better. And

[45:17] what happened is Hamas chose to go and

[45:20] heinously [snorts]

[45:21] smash that to pieces with this Pearl

[45:24] Harbor style atrocity out of nowhere.

[45:27] And I remember laying that out as is a

[45:30] good way to remind people of how that

[45:31] entire debate started. That one group

[45:34] took a situation that was gradually

[45:35] getting better and smashed it to pieces

[45:37] because they decided war is better. Us

[45:40] getting bombed is better. They had to

[45:41] know all those things would happen. Us

[45:42] taking a bunch of hostages and making

[45:44] people lose their minds. that would be

[45:45] better than the situation being peaceful

[45:47] and gradually getting better. I remember

[45:49] talking to him about that on the call

[45:51] now that I because I I'd mentioned it at

[45:53] other times, but I definitely reiterated

[45:55] it on that call. So that's what Charlie

[45:57] was doing in that call. He was trying to

[45:59] handle a difficult issue. There was no

[46:02] there was no threats. Oh Charlie, you'd

[46:04] better do this or

[46:06] >> XYZ will happen to you. That is

[46:08] fabrications from people. Now, speaking

[46:11] to the donation part or or when you talk

[46:13] with donors, because that stuff came

[46:15] out, I was not in those group texts that

[46:17] came out. Uh, but it reflected

[46:21] interactions I'd have with Charlie,

[46:22] which as I knew, he would take heat

[46:25] that, oh, you can't have this person

[46:27] speak at your events. Uh, you should

[46:29] disavow this person. And, uh, Charlie,

[46:32] as his name uh, reveals, Kirk is

[46:34] Scottish for church. He had that sort of

[46:38] Scotsman energy. one, he was he was

[46:40] ready to kind of get in a scuffle with

[46:42] people. And what he really hated was, as

[46:45] he would call it, moral blackmail.

[46:47] Charlie would disinvite. Charlie would

[46:49] have people he'd cut off and say, "I'm

[46:51] not inviting the speaker anymore." But

[46:52] probably the worst way to ever have that

[46:53] happen is to say, "Charlie, you'd better

[46:55] disinvite this person or else." Because

[46:58] then he's like, "I can't give in because

[46:59] then I'll look like I'm giving in to

[47:00] people and then they'll never stop

[47:02] trying to do it." It's sort of a we, you

[47:04] know, we don't negotiate with terrorists

[47:06] sort of sort of attitude. And I

[47:07] shouldn't say that. I should actually I

[47:09] should I I'll draw that back because

[47:10] these were donors who'd supported us and

[47:12] they have absolutely the right to

[47:14] support or not support whatever they

[47:15] like and he would be frank about that.

[47:17] But that Charlie he is not going to be

[47:20] intimidated from his mission. One of his

[47:22] amazing talents is he had so many

[47:25] supporters, donors, investors as he

[47:26] called them. He would call them

[47:27] investors. And one thing that reflects

[47:30] is not just that he had that

[47:31] businessman's instinct of, you know,

[47:33] let's view it as investment, but that

[47:35] Charlie had a vision and he would

[47:39] present that vision. And if you wanted

[47:41] to participate in that vision, great. If

[47:43] that vision didn't appeal to you, that's

[47:45] fine. And that that's always the the

[47:49] perspective he would take that he would

[47:51] never be controlled by a donor. He would

[47:54] never be ordered by a donor. And

[47:58] as you said, he he he despised moral

[48:00] blackmail. And so that's that's all that

[48:04] that reflects is that there were some

[48:06] people who were more aggressive than him

[48:08] and saying this person should be uh

[48:11] booted out or publicly disinvited. And

[48:14] that's just not generally how Charlie

[48:17] rolled. Now an unfortunate side effect

[48:19] of that as we have seen since his death

[48:21] is some people are taking advantage of

[48:23] this good aspect of Charlie's character

[48:26] to do hateful and destructive things. So

[48:29] as an example in those text messages

[48:33] there's an exchange where he says you

[48:35] know lost a donor who is angry that I

[48:38] won't uninvite Tucker I think is what it

[48:40] was and then then he says I'm thinking

[48:41] of inviting Candace.

[48:43] >> Yeah. What he clearly means is I'm, you

[48:46] know, annoyed that people are doing this

[48:48] that they're where they're demanding

[48:49] that I cancel people. So, haha, it'd be

[48:52] funny if I responded by bringing in

[48:55] someone who I would be even more

[48:57] extreme.

[48:58] >> But he did not literally mean that. This

[49:00] is clearly his way of expressing

[49:02] exasperation. This is his way of you've

[49:05] been in a conversation,

[49:06] >> being a human being.

[49:06] >> Yeah. It's a way of being a human being.

[49:08] >> Yeah. And it's quite gling for Candace

[49:14] and her sports to come out and one take

[49:15] that literally. Oh, he was clearly about

[49:16] to uninvite me. I'm talking maybe that's

[49:18] why they killed him cuz he was about to

[49:19] invite me back. And

[49:23] then also to have that then in turn

[49:25] serve as their justification for Candace

[49:28] was Charlie's best friend and all of the

[49:31] people in his organization,

[49:33] including his wife, are the enemy and

[49:36] evil.

[49:39] And that I I want to circle back to that

[49:42] as the really

[49:44] despicable element in all of this that

[49:49] Charlie because he wanted to try to hold

[49:52] the coalition together because he didn't

[49:54] want to be booting people out without

[49:57] very good reason that people he was

[50:00] giving a lot of grace to that people he

[50:02] was frankly defending who had done a lot

[50:04] of stuff that I thought was pretty

[50:06] appalling.

[50:07] that they are turning around after his

[50:09] death and saying, "Thank you. We're

[50:10] going to do it 10 times worse than we

[50:12] ever were doing it before, and we're

[50:14] going to make very personal attacks on

[50:16] people incredibly close to Charlie."

[50:19] >> And

[50:20] it's been hugely upsetting to me to see

[50:22] that happen.

[50:23] >> Yeah.

[50:25] >> How did you come to be in this position

[50:27] that you find yourself in? You you're

[50:29] born in South Dakota and today you sit

[50:33] as you know the producer of one of the

[50:37] top shows in the country as the uh you

[50:40] know sort of um consigary to one of the

[50:43] most powerful men in the country present

[50:45] at his assassination which is the most

[50:48] consequential assassination of the last

[50:51] half century in this country. What what

[50:54] does the journey look like that brings

[50:55] us a Blake Nef?

[50:58] It all starts with

[51:00] >> a man loves a woman very much.

[51:01] >> No, it all starts with Desh Duza if you

[51:03] can believe that actually.

[51:04] >> Really?

[51:05] >> It's a very funny story. Uh so I was I

[51:08] grew up in South Dakota of course and

[51:10] actually I shouldn't say it starts with

[51:11] Desh Duza. This will really appall

[51:13] people. It starts with John Thoon. Uh,

[51:15] but so I was in my family, a lot of

[51:19] people have a story where I was a

[51:20] liberal and then I got mugged by reality

[51:23] by the George Zimmerman trial or by

[51:25] Floyd Palooa or any number of things and

[51:27] I moved to the right. No, my family is

[51:29] rockolid conservative. Great people. I

[51:31] love them.

[51:31] >> Yeah.

[51:32] >> Great patriots. And so growing up, I'm

[51:35] in middle school and I'm a part of the

[51:37] South Dakota Teenage Republicans and we

[51:39] do an event.

[51:39] >> Did you have a navy blue blazer with

[51:41] gold buttons by

[51:42] >> I did not. I did. We're not that type of

[51:44] I think that's more of an East Coast

[51:45] College Republican thing. This or

[51:46] Teenage Republican.

[51:47] >> All College Republicans aspire.

[51:49] >> I shouldn't say college. Teenage. Yeah,

[51:50] Teenage Republicans. And we do an event

[51:52] at Thunder Road, which is a uh go-kart

[51:55] and mini golf facility. I remember. And

[51:59] John Thun, who I believe wasn't even a

[52:02] senator at this time. This was between

[52:04] when he was in the house. He ran and

[52:06] failed in 2002. So I think he is a

[52:08] private citizen at this time, but he was

[52:10] going to run against Tom Dashel. He

[52:11] shows up and speaks briefly. Can

[52:13] teenagers, you're the future of our

[52:15] country, all of that. And he actually

[52:16] makes a book recommendation and he

[52:18] recommends Letters to a Young

[52:19] Conservative by Desh Duza.

[52:22] >> And I'm, you know, a good little

[52:24] aspiring Republican and think I'm going

[52:26] to go get that book. So I go in and rent

[52:28] the book from the library. And what Desh

[52:30] talks about in that book is he talks

[52:32] about uh he go he he went to Dartmouth

[52:35] College and he was an early figure in

[52:36] the Dartmouth Review which the Dartmouth

[52:39] Review was is the conservative campus

[52:40] paper at Dartmouth and it was one of I

[52:43] think the first dedicated conservative

[52:44] papers at least in the modern era on

[52:48] college campuses and the way he

[52:50] describes it is highly entertaining. The

[52:52] early history of the Dartmouth review is

[52:54] quite the tale. They're getting in beefs

[52:57] with professors. The college

[52:58] administration is denouncing and

[53:00] organizing rallies against them. They're

[53:03] getting sued by people. It It's a highly

[53:05] entertaining story from start to finish.

[53:07] And I read this and I think I want to go

[53:10] to Dartmouth College and write for the

[53:12] Dartmouth Review because that sounds

[53:13] really awesome. And 110% that is the

[53:17] reason I end up going to Dartmouth is

[53:19] that I read the story and think it

[53:20] sounds awesome. and I found other

[53:21] reasons to like it, but it would not

[53:23] have implanted in my brain so hard as a

[53:26] thing I would want to do uh if I hadn't

[53:28] read that. So, I did that. I applied to

[53:31] went to Dartmouth, wrote for the

[53:33] Dartmouth Review. People can probably go

[53:34] dig up those articles. They're probably

[53:35] not very good. I was in college.

[53:36] Probably used the passive voice way too

[53:38] much. And did all of that, but that gave

[53:41] me writing experience in college. I

[53:44] always thought I would be a lawyer. I

[53:46] did everything you could do except go to

[53:48] law school. took the LSAT, sent the

[53:50] applications, did all of that, had good

[53:52] offers. But this was especially at the

[53:55] peak of a lot of people saying,

[53:56] "Actually, being a lawyer is uh not fun

[53:58] in a lot of ways, and once you're a

[54:00] lawyer, what they really said is once

[54:01] you're a lawyer, it's very difficult to

[54:02] stop being one. It's hard to get out."

[54:04] And that spooked me a little and I

[54:05] thought, do I really really want to do

[54:07] this? And so probably the most shocking

[54:09] decision of my life was I decided to

[54:12] defer law school for at least a year and

[54:14] I took a position or I took a fellowship

[54:16] at The Hill, which the newspaper in DC

[54:19] doing stuff for them, which was

[54:20] sponsored by the Collegiate Network,

[54:22] which would get year-long fellowships

[54:25] for people who did conservative

[54:26] journalism in undergrad. So that

[54:28] Dartmouth review thing that I did

[54:30] because of the Desh Souza book that John

[54:32] recommended, did that for a year that

[54:34] led to me getting a position. and I

[54:36] didn't hate it, so I stayed in it. I did

[54:38] a position at the Daily Caller where I

[54:40] wrote about education. I met Tucker

[54:42] there. When Tucker got his Fox show, he

[54:44] asked me to be the writer for it. Did

[54:47] that for three and a half years. And

[54:50] >> well, we can't we can't move too quickly

[54:53] from this. I mean, you were writing the

[54:54] most important monologue that existed in

[54:58] conservative media.

[54:59] >> Yeah. Well, it it's not a place I ever

[55:02] expected to be at uh I guess it started

[55:04] when I was 26 years old. So it it was

[55:07] >> a very interesting place to be and there

[55:09] was a lot of learning that came from it.

[55:11] Uh one thing I've always said Tucker is

[55:13] a better writer than I am and I learned

[55:15] a lot from him working under him and

[55:19] another thing that I've said is that

[55:23] even at Fox it's not I've always

[55:25] rejected this. Sometimes they'll say oh

[55:28] he was just this guy you know

[55:30] controlling things or whatever. It's no

[55:33] I was I was a person who worked with

[55:36] Tucker that Tucker

[55:38] had a vision and I I was like a labor

[55:40] saving device for him. I think uh I I

[55:42] did an interview with Politico lately

[55:44] and I think they included this in the

[55:45] article that uh I told them you know

[55:48] sometimes I would write something and

[55:50] Tucker would go oh this is great and you

[55:51] know it would run one or two words would

[55:53] change sometimes he'd change it a bit

[55:54] sometimes he'd say uh botch the job play

[55:57] rip it all up and there's a totally new

[55:59] thing and that that's the kind of thing

[56:01] it was. So, I only want to say that

[56:02] where they're saying, "Oh, you know, I I

[56:05] I wrote it. I contributed to writing for

[56:08] it."

[56:09] >> So, what kind of pressure are we talking

[56:10] about? Because, as I understand it,

[56:12] Tucker would shoot you an idea midday.

[56:14] And you're going to shoot this show at

[56:16] what, 5:00?

[56:17] >> Uh, we we shot it live. It was a live

[56:19] show.

[56:19] >> The show was live.

[56:20] >> Yeah, it was live. And it would

[56:21] fluctuate, but I think the most common

[56:23] time we were out was 8:00 p.m.

[56:24] >> Yeah, it was a later show. I didn't

[56:25] realize it was live.

[56:26] >> Yeah. Yeah. You would pick what we

[56:27] wanted at I think it's one of those

[56:29] things where it started off earlier and

[56:31] then it went later kind of as we got all

[56:32] used to it. But usually you'd know by

[56:34] one. Yeah. You'd get your videos and you

[56:36] >> So you're talking about like a 20 minute

[56:38] monologue that you guys are cranking out

[56:40] every

[56:40] >> only a few of them were truly 20

[56:42] minutes. So most of the time it was

[56:44] seven or eight minutes and often it was

[56:45] about the so I should I but yeah

[56:47] sometimes it was long on you.

[56:49] >> Yeah. 100%. Yeah. I

[56:50] >> that's just how I am. But yes. No, I

[56:53] would say the biggest source of pressure

[56:54] wasn't so much the time pressure of how

[56:56] long it had to be. The biggest pressure

[56:59] was the very real awareness that the

[57:03] show actually mattered. That Donald

[57:05] Trump was the president.

[57:07] >> Donald Trump watches a lot of TV news.

[57:10] He does. He did and always has. He's

[57:12] gotten cues from what the media is

[57:15] saying about things. And so

[57:18] we had a pretty good chance that if we

[57:20] said something that the president would

[57:22] see it. And that doesn't necessarily

[57:23] mean he would follow it, but he would

[57:25] think about it. And

[57:28] sometimes there were big dramatic events

[57:30] happening uh where we were considering

[57:32] bombing Syria after one of those red

[57:34] line incidents where Assad allegedly

[57:37] gassed people or after that drone got

[57:40] shot down by Iran and there was this

[57:42] scare that President Trump was going to

[57:44] have to respond. how harshly would he

[57:46] respond? Uh,

[57:48] and especially during one of those big

[57:51] inflection points, there was that

[57:52] awareness, the stuff we're saying could

[57:55] impact how the president reacts to this.

[57:57] And so, we have to be very responsible

[58:00] about what we are doing. And I'd say

[58:02] that was the biggest source of,

[58:06] you know, nervous nerves out of it is

[58:09] will this stuff matter? are we saying

[58:11] the right thing to get what we think

[58:13] will be good for the country and I think

[58:16] mostly we did a very good job of that

[58:18] and sometimes we also generated good

[58:21] change for the country. I remember a

[58:23] conversation we once had, this was early

[58:25] in the Trump administration, and one of

[58:27] the guys in our team was complaining,

[58:29] "Hey, Obama really liberalized things

[58:32] for transgender." He he let transgender

[58:34] soldiers join the military. And

[58:36] President Trump hasn't undone that yet,

[58:38] and he should be able to because he's

[58:39] the president. And so we mentioned this

[58:42] to Tucker, and Tucker's like, "Yeah,

[58:43] you're right. We should we should do

[58:45] something on this." And so we did. And

[58:49] in my head, I thought it was uh it was

[58:51] like the next day, but it turns out I

[58:53] talked to the reporter. It was I think

[58:55] we did it twice and it happened a few

[58:56] weeks later. But basically then

[58:58] President Trump does abruptly announce

[59:01] one morning on I think on Twitter that

[59:04] he is changing the policy and we're not

[59:06] going to have transgender troops

[59:07] anymore. And apparently the Pentagon is

[59:09] caught off guard by this. And I don't

[59:12] know for sure, but it seems pretty clear

[59:15] to me that us deciding to remind

[59:18] President Trump about that helped make

[59:20] that happen. That, hey, this was a

[59:21] campaign promise. This is something

[59:23] Obama did. You don't like what Obama

[59:24] did. You have the power to change this.

[59:26] Let's go make it happen. And I think

[59:28] that was good for the country that we

[59:30] did that. And there's other cases like

[59:32] that throughout. And I think we I think

[59:33] we accomplished a lot with that program.

[59:36] >> It ended poorly for you at Fox. you you

[59:40] I I don't understand all that there is

[59:42] here, but you had anonymously

[59:43] contributed to some

[59:44] >> I I had made a I made anonymous posts on

[59:47] a actually a for an internet forum that

[59:49] I'd started posting on uh because of the

[59:51] law school thing. It was it was

[59:52] dedicated to lawyers and law students is

[59:55] what it began as, but it was sort of it

[59:57] was an unmodderated internet forum. And

[59:59] so, as all unmodderated internet forums

[00:01] do, it became right-wing and it just and

[00:05] it had a lot of chaotic humor on it. And

[00:08] so basically they just doxed that I

[00:10] posted there. And I will note that they

[00:13] they it was a very mean-spirited thing

[00:16] from CNN because like the worst thing

[00:18] they had was there would be a thread

[00:20] where someone would use a racial slur

[00:24] and I would be in that thread. Not and

[00:27] usually just like I would I would post

[00:28] something else or or post a a blank

[00:31] thing or whatever. Considering how much

[00:34] offensive stuff was on there, that's

[00:36] incredibly mild and but it was July

[00:39] 2020. It was a very superheated time in

[00:42] the country. Yeah.

[00:43] >> And so

[00:43] >> it was the beginning of peak cancel

[00:45] culture.

[00:45] >> It honestly I think more than one person

[00:48] has observed that probably that exact

[00:50] moment was the peak of it. M

[00:53] >> you could argue either way, but in terms

[00:55] of what it actually was versus like how

[01:00] hysterical the reaction was that it was

[01:02] the lead story for a weekend

[01:04] essentially. It was very much uh only in

[01:07] 2020 sort of thing.

[01:09] >> Three years on the show with Tucker.

[01:12] >> Uh yeah, three and a half. I started

[01:13] right at the start of the Trump

[01:14] administration, I think two weeks before

[01:15] inauguration, and then I left in July

[01:19] 2020, and then I joined Charlie in

[01:22] October of 22.

[01:24] >> So, three years writing with Tucker, who

[01:29] you give credit to Tucker as being a

[01:31] better writer than you. Nevertheless, a

[01:33] similar position in that you're helping

[01:35] to shape the language of at the time the

[01:38] most prominent conservative commentator

[01:41] uh the most powerful conservative

[01:43] commentator because you add his

[01:44] prominence to the fact that the

[01:46] president of the United States is

[01:47] engaging with the content directly and

[01:49] you have real influence which isn't

[01:51] always true. Uh and then after this sort

[01:56] of painful and abrupt cancellation

[02:00] a few years in the wilderness, you

[02:02] emerge in a similar position with kind

[02:05] of the next guy, the next most powerful,

[02:07] most prominent person in conservative

[02:10] media. a guy who has the president of

[02:11] the United States, you know, on speed

[02:13] dial on his cell phone, who's

[02:14] contributed to his uh electoral uh

[02:17] victory in in 2024 in particular, has

[02:21] one of the pre-minent conservative

[02:23] podcasts at the time. So, you've now

[02:25] occupied two uh roles for two different

[02:29] highly influential, highly uh trafficked

[02:33] conservative common commentators.

[02:37] Politico says in in the piece that they

[02:40] wrote of you here of late that you were

[02:43] sort of instrumental in pushing the

[02:45] envelope of what was acceptable to say

[02:47] on the right. that you broke down many

[02:50] of the barriers that perhaps

[02:54] curtailed the worst ideas from having

[02:57] common expression on the right that you

[02:59] took ideas that were only possible in

[03:01] sort of anonymous uh you know

[03:03] unmodderated

[03:05] 4chan style online message boards and

[03:09] brought them to the mainstream of

[03:10] conservative thought and they say that

[03:13] now you're trying to rebuild those

[03:15] barriers that you're uh now concerned

[03:18] concerned that perhaps you helped to

[03:20] unleash sort of spirits beyond your own

[03:22] control or beyond our own control. Is

[03:24] that a fair criticism?

[03:25] >> It it's it's really not even a fair.

[03:27] >> Well, it's certainly in that framing

[03:29] it's inaccurate. It is true 100%. One of

[03:32] the things that we did with the Fox show

[03:34] is there were things you were

[03:38] essentially not allowed to say on the

[03:39] right. And one thing I think people

[03:41] don't appreciate is how dramatic that

[03:44] change has been. that it is now so

[03:49] routine for Republicans in America to

[03:52] say stuff that was once verboten or at

[03:54] least considered very impolite to bring

[03:57] up that they've practically forgotten

[03:59] that the suffocate the cens suffocating

[04:03] control was there. And so one of the

[04:05] examples that was pretty important is

[04:08] there is a ton of stuff in American life

[04:10] that was premised on explicitly

[04:12] discriminating against men, against

[04:15] white people, against straight people,

[04:16] and of course specifically straight

[04:18] white men. Uh and it was all over the

[04:21] place. There was that great article in

[04:23] uh Compact uh I think late last year uh

[04:27] or maybe it was early this year. I can't

[04:28] remember exactly when it came out, but

[04:29] it was that guy who was trying to be a

[04:31] writer in Hollywood. And it talked about

[04:33] the way white men during the peak woke

[04:36] era of late Obama, the late 20110s,

[04:39] where it was just there's too many white

[04:41] people in this industry. Stop hiring

[04:44] white men. And that was happening all

[04:45] over the place. And when it was

[04:48] happening in that period, you kind of

[04:51] couldn't say it. You couldn't say that

[04:54] this is motiv like they are being racist

[04:56] against white people. If you did try to

[04:58] say it, they would a sometimes they'd

[05:00] aggressively freak out, sometimes they

[05:02] would try to censor you, sometimes they

[05:04] would try to ban you from things. Uh

[05:06] there was other stuff going on. The

[05:08] transgender mania had this sort of

[05:10] unstoppable nature to it where it was

[05:13] becoming more and more entrenched. They

[05:15] were getting medical societies to say

[05:17] actually the science has settled that

[05:19] transgenderism is real and the best way

[05:22] to treat it is to transition kids, young

[05:25] kids. all of this stuff was happening

[05:27] and if you pushed back on it on Twitter,

[05:30] you you actually could get banned for

[05:32] some of the stuff that you would say and

[05:35] it really was bad and you had to be

[05:38] careful how you worded it to avoid

[05:40] >> even at Fox.

[05:40] >> Even at Fox, uh I think I one of the

[05:43] stories I told was Fox actually didn't

[05:46] really heavily police what we did, but

[05:48] one of the only times they did and I was

[05:50] not directly involved in this. I was

[05:52] told about this by Tucker later was that

[05:54] Fox didn't want they they said you

[05:57] aren't allowed to say that Maxine Waters

[05:58] hates white people. And maybe that's a

[06:01] strong way of putting it, but Maxine

[06:02] Waters has said some truly deranged

[06:05] stuff about white people and she's egged

[06:08] on she she's celebrated

[06:11] violent riots. I think she's described

[06:12] the the LA riots of the 90s as the LA

[06:15] uprising something like that where they

[06:17] you know they give it this moral cast

[06:20] that it was a good thing and

[06:24] we wanted we wanted to say that and we

[06:25] weren't allowed to. So instead, we had

[06:27] to work out a vocabulary to how do we

[06:29] say this without making everyone flip

[06:31] out? And it's not even just would we get

[06:32] censored, but Fox is a for-profit

[06:35] business that has advertisers. And so

[06:37] how do you make it so they don't do a

[06:39] gigantic ad boycott of us for saying

[06:41] something true? So one of the things we

[06:43] had to say a lot of is they're attacking

[06:45] people based on skin color. They are

[06:47] discriminating based on skin color. And

[06:49] that's sort of easing in the fact that

[06:52] in America it is it had absolutely

[06:55] become the case that it was acceptable

[06:56] to racially discriminate against white

[06:59] people in a way we would not tolerate

[07:01] for any other group remotely and and in

[07:03] a way that we cast as incredibly morally

[07:06] indefensible in other contexts. Like if

[07:08] we're talking about segregation in the

[07:09] 50s, if we were to say, "Yeah, in this

[07:12] place they would, you know, they had a

[07:14] standing order, don't hire any black

[07:15] men." We would consider that hatefully

[07:18] discriminatory. Yet, it's totally normal

[07:20] for every Fortune 500 company to have

[07:22] that as an implicit and sometimes

[07:24] explicit policy in their hiring. And we

[07:28] had to get people to be able to say

[07:30] that. They were not able to say that for

[07:32] a very long time. It and it was also

[07:35] just being able to another thing that

[07:38] was our role was just being able to

[07:39] articulate things that were relatively

[07:42] new. So, for example, that President

[07:45] Trump when he was running for president,

[07:47] one of the things that helped him get

[07:48] energy was he just came out and said the

[07:50] Iraq war was dumb and shouldn't have

[07:52] happened and it was it was bad. And this

[07:54] is something probably about half the

[07:56] Republican party had been thinking for

[07:58] years at that point, but you weren't

[08:01] really saying it. And he finally said it

[08:02] and a lot of people felt a lot of relief

[08:04] that he did. But you have to convert

[08:06] that from bashing a specific war that

[08:09] was dumb to here's a conservative vision

[08:12] for why we should generally

[08:14] be more in favor of avoiding wars and

[08:17] not getting as involved in many as many

[08:19] things. And that is pointing out that

[08:21] wars can be really unpredictable. They

[08:23] last longer than you expect. They're

[08:25] very expensive. And a lot of wars are

[08:29] not nearly as in America's interest as

[08:32] people will claim. they're more in the

[08:35] interest of

[08:38] any number of specific lobbies or and so

[08:41] on. And we were able to give some put

[08:45] some meat on the bone of being able to

[08:46] articulate why that was the case. And

[08:48] that's a big thing we accomplished with

[08:49] that show. And it's a big thing that

[08:51] also Charlie was accomplishing when I

[08:52] was working with him.

[08:54] >> But did that, you know,

[08:57] >> even if we grant that it's a net

[08:59] positive.

[09:00] >> Yeah. So, oh yeah. So, getting back to

[09:01] the censorship more speech is better.

[09:02] So, getting to the censorship part in

[09:04] specifically that I've always been a

[09:07] free speech absolutist that I think I

[09:10] think America's approach to freedom of

[09:12] speech that we've had uh thanks to some

[09:14] earlier Supreme Court decisions is the

[09:17] best one in the world that freedom of

[09:19] speech is you can say anything unless it

[09:22] is actively fermenting

[09:25] a crime. So, you know, the classic

[09:27] standard, I think, is uh like imminent,

[09:30] you know, if you're imminently inciting

[09:31] a crime, I think the common one is if

[09:33] you need two out of three of like

[09:34] specific persons, specific time,

[09:36] specific method. I might be getting that

[09:38] a little wrong. I'm not a lawyer, but

[09:40] that unless you are really specifically

[09:42] inciting a crime or of course engaged in

[09:45] criminal conspiracy or lieling, defaming

[09:48] someone, you can be sued for that. But

[09:50] other than that, we just should not have

[09:52] restrictions on speech. certainly not

[09:54] hate speech laws that those everywhere

[09:57] they have existed have always just

[09:58] become a tool to suppress politically

[10:01] unpopular views and to marginalize

[10:04] things. We see that happening in Europe

[10:05] all the time where the population is

[10:07] screaming for immigration restriction

[10:09] and they use their all these places will

[10:11] claim to have freedom of speech but then

[10:12] they'll have hate speech laws where any

[10:14] politician who tries to run on this

[10:16] super popular issue is in legal hot

[10:18] water. And

[10:21] so I am yeah I'm a free speech

[10:22] absolutist. But one thing we have to

[10:23] confront is if we are genuinely free

[10:25] speech absolutists, that means people

[10:27] are going to say totally unhinged and

[10:30] hateful and conspiratorial things

[10:32] because if you're a free speech

[10:34] absolutist, they have the right to do

[10:35] that. But that actually makes it more

[10:40] important for us as political actors to

[10:44] try to set boundaries of okay, if we're

[10:46] in this coalition, what is it okay for

[10:49] someone to say and still be a member in

[10:51] good standing of this coalition. And

[10:53] that's something that Charlie was doing

[10:54] when we talked about him trying to

[10:56] create that helicopter pad for people to

[10:57] land on that we reject Jew hate in all

[10:59] of its forms. Guys, if we're going to

[11:02] have a movement that is a big tent, you

[11:04] still that doesn't mean literally anyone

[11:06] can get into it. As an example, I don't

[11:09] think Charlie would want someone in the

[11:11] movement who would say, "Actually,

[11:13] transgenderism is great. You should it

[11:15] should be totally fine to mutilate

[11:17] 5-year-olds." We would be a gasast at

[11:20] that and we would say that is not

[11:22] something that is part of our coalition

[11:24] to argue for that. And I think a similar

[11:26] thing would be for the absolute most

[11:29] unhinged conspiracy theories. Period.

[11:31] That is not it is not just asking

[11:34] questions to say that Erica Kirk either

[11:37] murdered her husband, conspired to

[11:38] murder her husband, or is taking part in

[11:40] a conspiracy to cover up that murder.

[11:42] That is not just asking questions. That

[11:44] is not within the space of valid debate.

[11:48] That is a lunatic thing to say that can

[11:50] only be driven by deep mental imbalance

[11:54] or a malicious hateful agenda.

[11:57] >> Should be legal.

[11:58] >> It should be legal. Well, I mean, if

[12:00] they defame you, someone should be able

[12:01] to sue you. But I don't think the

[12:02] government should come in and say

[12:04] they're engaged in hate speech against

[12:05] Erica Kirk and you're going to jail.

[12:07] >> Yeah.

[12:09] like but we have to be able to say this

[12:13] is not an acceptable behavior to engage

[12:16] in

[12:17] >> within the conservative coalition

[12:19] >> conservative coalition.

[12:22] So

[12:23] Tucker has reacted to your political

[12:26] piece by saying that you're that you've

[12:29] completely lost the plot that you've

[12:31] completely uh given into censorship

[12:34] yourself and that you are calling for uh

[12:38] the policing of speech not only perhaps

[12:41] within the coalition but the policing of

[12:43] speech more broadly and legally. Fair

[12:45] characterization of what you said?

[12:48] >> No. No, it's not. And it it truly

[12:52] troubled me that it it troubled me that

[12:55] he reacted in that way because

[12:59] I guess as an example,

[13:02] Tucker has extended maximum grace to

[13:06] Candace Owens. For example, in uh about

[13:10] December of last year, he said, you

[13:12] know, I he said something like, "I

[13:14] haven't really followed what she said

[13:15] except for one thing about Egyptian

[13:18] planes." And that's absolutely true that

[13:20] Egyptian planes are following Eric

[13:21] Kakirk around the country, which is not

[13:24] true, but he believed it for some

[13:26] reason. And he had another interview

[13:29] where he said something along the lines

[13:31] of, you know, I still talk to Candace

[13:34] and I still talk to Erica and I'm

[13:36] friends with both of them. And it's so

[13:37] unfortunate that people try to drive you

[13:40] apart from your friends over

[13:42] disagreements.

[13:43] It kind of has this tone, if only, you

[13:45] know, if only if only Erica and Candace

[13:47] could agree to disagree on whether Erica

[13:49] murdered her husband.

[13:51] And so it it was painful for me to see

[13:55] him extend that amount of grace and then

[13:59] when I just say what what I said in the

[14:01] article was okay we got what we wanted

[14:03] on speech. We have vastly more free

[14:05] speech now than we did 10 years ago and

[14:08] it's because Elon Musk bought X or

[14:10] bought Twitter and made it X. Uh because

[14:13] Trump won a lot of the other platforms

[14:15] dialed it back. So Elon or uh

[14:17] >> you mean because he literally made all

[14:18] the tech giants sit behind him in the

[14:20] rotunda when he he intimidated the tech

[14:22] giants. Mark Zuckerberg says, "Oh,

[14:24] Facebook is not getting as involved in

[14:26] political stuff. We're going to dial it

[14:27] back. There's more platforms you can go

[14:29] on like Rumble that won't censor you."

[14:32] It's just a much better environment for

[14:34] speech. The stuff you can say on trans,

[14:36] on DEI, on any number of issues,

[14:39] frankly, including on Israel stuff if

[14:41] that's if that's your hobby horse. It's

[14:43] all a much better environment in terms

[14:44] of having freedom of speech. But there

[14:46] is a side effect of this, which is if

[14:50] Candace Owens was doing the sort of

[14:51] thing she did 8 years ago, I think she

[14:55] would have a harder time making as much

[14:58] money as she clearly has off it today.

[15:00] She would have a harder time having the

[15:02] reach she has. And that is a side effect

[15:05] of us getting what we wanted from

[15:07] freedom of speech. In the same way,

[15:08] there is a side effect, there is a

[15:09] trade-off to anything that you do. And I

[15:13] said that and if you read the article it

[15:16] explicitly I say we can either decide

[15:18] this was a mistake and we embrace

[15:19] censorship or we confront this in some

[15:21] other way so that we can preserve

[15:22] freedom of speech. And as I clearly say

[15:24] I would prefer to have freedom of speech

[15:27] greatly and the article itself says that

[15:31] he frames that you know I the political

[15:33] asked Blake if he was you know so

[15:35] confident in his position of maximal

[15:38] free speech. They frame it something

[15:40] like that. And for in Tucker's response

[15:43] where he accuses me of making my peace

[15:45] with censorship, which he he then likens

[15:48] to making your peace with genocide,

[15:51] he deliberately presents it to conceal

[15:56] the fact that I make it clear I support

[16:01] maximal free speech. And it should be

[16:04] clear that that's what I support because

[16:05] among other things, we've had this

[16:07] friction with Candace for the past year.

[16:09] And I have never once said YouTube

[16:12] should ban Candace. I've never said

[16:13] Rumble should ban Candace. I don't even

[16:15] think I've ever said they should

[16:16] demonetize her. And

[16:20] I've never said she should get arrested

[16:22] for these things, that we should change

[16:23] our laws, that she's unable to do this.

[16:26] I've just said the stuff she's saying is

[16:28] a lie, and that when people defend it,

[16:29] they are defending really disgusting

[16:31] lies. I have only ever engaged with this

[16:34] on the level of is what she is saying

[16:36] true? Is what she is saying morally

[16:38] right or wrong. Never once have I had a

[16:41] response of I want censorship over this.

[16:44] And

[16:46] he should be aware of that. He also

[16:50] should have seen it right in the article

[16:51] making it clear how I feel. And I feel

[16:55] it was

[16:57] dishonest and incredibly unfair to

[17:00] present that as Blake Nef has become the

[17:03] rot at the heart of the conservative

[17:04] movement who is fighting for censorship,

[17:07] >> who's essentially the uh

[17:09] >> who has betrayed Charlie's legacy in in

[17:11] effect by doing this. And I think that

[17:13] was

[17:15] dishonest and very hurtful. And there's

[17:19] really no other way to describe it. And

[17:21] it's upsetting because I have seen we've

[17:25] seen the amount of grace he can give to

[17:28] other people. And

[17:31] I kind of wish you would have considered

[17:33] extending that same grace to here where

[17:36] if even if you think there's multiple

[17:37] interpretations of it, one could pause

[17:39] and think what's the more reasonable

[17:41] interpretation of this.

[17:44] >> I don't know Tucker. I mean, I've I've

[17:46] met Tucker, of course, and exchanged uh

[17:49] messages with Tucker and and was a guest

[17:51] once on Tucker's show, which was a very

[17:53] gracious thing of him to afford me that

[17:56] opportunity.

[17:58] Tucker is famously in the movement uh

[18:02] considered to be a very gracious uh and

[18:05] affable person. He's given he used his

[18:07] platform at Fox to give opportunities to

[18:10] an enormous number of people within the

[18:13] movement.

[18:15] Um,

[18:15] >> he gave a huge opportunity to me. I I

[18:18] owe

[18:20] >> my entire career to the fact that Tucker

[18:24] like plucked me out and said, "Would you

[18:26] like to be the writer for my show at

[18:28] Fox? I did not apply for that. He asked

[18:31] me to do it." And I owe him a tremendous

[18:34] amount. As you say, he's incredibly

[18:36] affable and gracious. Uh so many people

[18:38] have had

[18:40] incredible experiences with him,

[18:43] including just, you know, a member of

[18:45] our staff met him very briefly for the

[18:48] first time at Amfest and she had just

[18:50] gotten married and then a year later

[18:54] he's there again. He remembers her and

[18:55] asks her how she likes married life. She

[18:58] have is she pregnant yet? Any any of

[18:59] those things? And she loved it. She

[19:01] loved that interaction with him. So many

[19:03] people have had that. people would go

[19:06] have I assumed probably still do go to

[19:08] Tucker for advice about things. I called

[19:11] and asked Tucker for advice about

[19:13] whether I should work for Charlie versus

[19:16] another job opportunity I had. And he

[19:18] said, "You should do Charlie. I think

[19:19] you'll like that he is a Christian who

[19:22] fights for Christian things, that he's

[19:23] pro-life and all of those things, and

[19:25] that'll be important to you." And that

[19:26] was good advice. A lot of people have

[19:29] done that. And

[19:32] >> I read a piece by Tucker years ago.

[19:36] And when I say years ago, I mean maybe

[19:39] 20 years ago. So I will get some of the

[19:41] exact details of this wrong. But if I'm

[19:43] remembering correctly, he was traveling

[19:45] on Air Force One with President Bush W.

[19:50] Bush.

[19:52] And as they flew over

[19:55] some part of the the vast interior of

[19:57] the country, uh the pilot said, "You

[20:00] know, we're now flying over

[20:03] De Moine."

[20:04] And President Bush rattled off from

[20:06] memory the precinct, the Republican

[20:08] precinct uh captains in that wherever

[20:11] that wherever it was. It wouldn't be De

[20:14] Moines if they had

[20:17] and Tucker observed in this piece that

[20:19] he wrote that it the only other person

[20:21] he had ever seen who was capable of

[20:22] doing that

[20:24] >> was President Clinton who also had this

[20:26] unbelievable

[20:28] ability to remember every individual

[20:31] that he encountered. So, supposedly FDR

[20:33] had a party trick where he'd have he had

[20:35] a map of all the US's counties and that

[20:37] he'd have someone draw a line across it

[20:39] and he would name the Democrat county

[20:42] chair for every county it went through.

[20:44] I don't know if that's true. I've only

[20:45] heard it, but fits into that.

[20:48] >> Tucker in this piece was making clear

[20:50] that he was no fan of George W. Bush nor

[20:52] of Bill Clinton obviously, but that this

[20:54] aspect, their ability to function as

[20:56] retail politicians, their ability to

[20:59] know people was actually their great in

[21:02] his estimation their great superpower.

[21:04] And he clearly cultivated that

[21:06] superpower in himself. He's he's got an

[21:09] amaz to your point, he he remembers the

[21:11] gal that he met at Amfest and that she

[21:13] had just got me. remembers the these

[21:14] details about her life uh and has helped

[21:17] many many people and yet

[21:20] he is siding with some of the worst

[21:23] voices in the country right now. He's

[21:25] advancing some of the worst ideas in the

[21:28] country right now. He's advancing Jew

[21:31] hatred. He's advancing uh he he's a

[21:34] complete opponent of the administration

[21:37] by almost any uh definition. He

[21:42] is all but endorsing Democrat socialists

[21:45] uh in races now. Not quite endorsing but

[21:48] all but endorsing. He's being

[21:49] uncharitable in his interpretation of

[21:52] things to the to the point that I would

[21:54] say he's being dishonest. Not only I

[21:56] think it was a complete dishonest

[21:57] framing of your remarks in Politico, but

[21:59] I think that he's been dishonest in in

[22:01] his framing of many issues uh of late.

[22:06] Are you surprised given the time that

[22:08] you spent with him to find him in the

[22:10] place uh that history finds him today?

[22:14] Is this cons is is this a consistent

[22:16] path from where Tucker was to where

[22:19] Tucker is or does it strike you that

[22:22] something has happened that's changed

[22:24] Tucker's trajectory?

[22:27] >> It's a it it's a challenging one to

[22:29] answer and not merely because there's so

[22:31] many factors that go into it, but

[22:32] because of what I just said.

[22:34] It's painful to

[22:38] speak about someone who

[22:41] has greatly benefited your life, who

[22:45] has done tremendous things for you, as

[22:47] Tucker has for me many a time over,

[22:52] and yet things have happened that

[22:57] I feel have I feel he's done things that

[22:59] are indefensible. And

[23:03] I've tried to navigate that. I don't So,

[23:05] as an example, when I was doing that

[23:07] Politico piece, that guy clearly wanted

[23:09] me to say way nastier things about

[23:11] Tucker

[23:12] >> than I was willing to. And I was

[23:14] pointing out that I owe him a lot. I am

[23:16] not looking for a fight with a person

[23:19] who's been a patron. The the bottom the

[23:22] bottom level of of hell in in Dante's

[23:24] Inferno is for people who have betrayed

[23:26] masters and benefactors. And Tucker was

[23:28] a benefactor to me. But Charlie was a

[23:31] benefactor to me too. And Erica's been a

[23:33] benefactor. Bene benefactors. Erica has

[23:37] done great things for me, too. And I

[23:39] have so many friends in

[23:42] Turning Point in Charlie's orbit that

[23:45] have had horrible things happen to them

[23:48] because of the lies that have been

[23:51] pushed for the last year. And

[23:55] so I've largely not tried to not respond

[23:59] to every individual thing he does. But

[24:02] for example, in a few months ago, he

[24:05] said the people who are closest to char

[24:08] who were closest to Charlie believe that

[24:10] his death was over his evolving position

[24:12] on Israel. Well, he knows I was close to

[24:16] Charlie and don't believe that. He knows

[24:18] Erica is close to Charlie and as far as

[24:21] I know, she doesn't believe that. and

[24:23] and so on. Others are like that that

[24:24] they we don't believe that. And so for

[24:26] him to say that was something he knew

[24:28] was untrue.

[24:30] Now

[24:32] what's driving this

[24:37] what I would say is I think this

[24:38] conversation has highlighted that Tucker

[24:40] is a person who has some powerfully good

[24:44] things about him. And I don't think it's

[24:45] just that Bill Clinton, you know, he's

[24:47] he's good the gift of gab. He would know

[24:49] people's names. Tucker has done he's

[24:52] been personally generous with people

[24:54] like he'll he he's given money to people

[24:56] who have needed it at times but all of

[25:00] us have bad traits as well. None of us

[25:03] is perfect and to a large extent how we

[25:06] evolve over time is

[25:09] whether we most cultivate our good

[25:11] traits or most cultivate our bad traits.

[25:14] And what I think has driven a lot of

[25:18] what Tucker has done in the last year or

[25:22] so is he's indulged

[25:26] negative traits within him more and

[25:29] more. And so they've taken over more and

[25:32] more of what his behavior is. And

[25:37] I should caveat this that I have not

[25:39] worked with him on a daily basis in six

[25:41] years at this point. uh I haven't

[25:43] corresponded with him super regularly in

[25:46] several years as well. So I'm only

[25:48] speaking as someone who worked with him

[25:50] for a large chunk of time and thus has a

[25:52] pretty

[25:53] broad understanding of how he thinks and

[25:56] acts. What I worry is happening is he

[26:00] has

[26:02] some like grievances that he has fixed

[26:05] upon. So, for example, that he has

[26:09] always been passionately against us

[26:11] going to war with Iran. He was paranoid

[26:13] that we would go to war with Iran way

[26:14] back when I was at the Daily Caller that

[26:17] people are fighting. They want regime

[26:18] change in Iran. And he thought that

[26:19] would be a calamity. And repeatedly we

[26:22] had those false starts towards higher

[26:24] conflict with Iran in the first Trump

[26:26] administration. And then we had the

[26:28] bombing strike a year ago. And then

[26:29] finally now they got far enough that

[26:31] they seem that they were attempting to

[26:34] to knock out the Ayatollah's regime.

[26:37] That's something he's been

[26:40] worried about for a very long time. He's

[26:42] fixated on it. And I think the fact that

[26:45] it finally happened, it was just

[26:47] profoundly super upsetting to him. And

[26:52] also the fact that I think he's spoken

[26:53] about it himself that he felt a little

[26:55] powerless to stop it. And this has made

[26:59] him so angry.

[27:02] So for example, Israel clearly fought in

[27:04] favor of this regime change attempt

[27:06] happening.

[27:08] He has a huge gripe with them. He's

[27:10] really angry at them. And this is it's

[27:13] like he's fixated on it. And so he

[27:16] because of that he'll believe anything

[27:19] negative. It's it's turned into him

[27:21] believing anything negative about them

[27:23] because he's so hostile to them that

[27:26] Israel did this war that I powerfully

[27:29] hate. So why wouldn't they have why

[27:32] wouldn't they have murdered Charlie? Why

[27:34] wouldn't they have murdered President

[27:36] Kennedy, which he's also suggested is

[27:38] something they did any number of things.

[27:42] And going beyond that, why wouldn't they

[27:44] do that? So he'll start to believe that.

[27:46] And then that then transitions into,

[27:49] let's be frank, carrying water for

[27:52] people who are pushing the most hateful

[27:54] and deranged conspiracy theory.

[27:58] I I would say it's at least on par with

[28:00] people who say like Sandy Hook was faked

[28:02] and the parents those their children

[28:03] never existed and they were all faking

[28:04] that. It's it's on par with that, but

[28:06] much more sustained, far more people

[28:08] getting into it. And it's like he's got

[28:12] that grievance that he's fixated on and

[28:15] he just refuses to see

[28:20] the huge damage that he's doing to

[28:23] individual people as a result of this

[28:26] and

[28:28] by extension kind of the damage he's

[28:30] doing to

[28:32] the movement the damage he's doing you

[28:34] could say to the country that Turning

[28:38] Point USA is obviously a movement that

[28:40] is for the good of America that it is

[28:42] promoting faith revival it's promoting

[28:45] marriage for young people. It's

[28:47] promoting try to get GOP. We need more.

[28:49] We need a better platform for young

[28:50] people to make housing more affordable,

[28:52] family formation more affordable. We

[28:53] need to get better economic

[28:55] opportunities for young people. That is

[28:57] what Turning Point action and Turnpoint

[28:59] USA fights for. And even on, you know,

[29:02] on foreign policy stuff, Charlie was

[29:04] saying like non-intervention, non

[29:05] non-invention on the show, we've said we

[29:07] didn't like the war when it was before.

[29:09] We said we don't think we should do

[29:10] something to Iran before it happened.

[29:12] after it happened, we said Charlie would

[29:14] have fought against this and he would

[29:15] want an off-ramp as soon as possible.

[29:17] That's what we've said. And

[29:21] he's been it's that all that's going on,

[29:25] but then Tucker is so fixated on his

[29:27] personal beef with Israel that he's

[29:29] going to enable people who are going to

[29:33] lie about this good organization, lie

[29:35] about the good people at it, and try to

[29:37] rip it to smitherreens.

[29:40] And I just I think it's that he's let

[29:42] this

[29:43] this personal well I don't want to say

[29:45] this this real grievance of his take

[29:47] over everything and has consumed

[29:50] everything and

[29:54] after a while you just have to throw up

[29:56] your hands and say what am I supposed to

[29:58] do here like I've as one of the

[30:04] conflicts that I've had is

[30:07] his brother has gone after a lot of

[30:10] people, not just me, but he's gone after

[30:13] our camera guy, our tech guy, who is not

[30:16] a public figure, who has never wanted to

[30:18] be a public figure, and who, because

[30:19] he's not a public figure, is not as

[30:22] equipped to deal with a bunch of people

[30:24] hating on you online or harassing you or

[30:26] sending you bad messages.

[30:29] It's not something he's ever wanted in

[30:30] his life, and it's painful to him, and

[30:32] it causes fear and distress for him. and

[30:35] he's gone after Charlie's former chief

[30:37] of staff. Same way he's done things like

[30:39] that. And

[30:42] I

[30:44] the last communication I had with Tucker

[30:46] was Tucker just privately, can you

[30:50] can you ask your brother to just stop

[30:51] pushing this Candace stuff?

[30:55] And he wouldn't. Not Not I will ask, but

[30:59] I don't think he'll do it. He refused to

[31:03] ask.

[31:04] And

[31:06] I just I feel that I don't think Tucker

[31:09] in 2018 would have had that response to

[31:13] someone he has a close relationship with

[31:16] spreading incredibly hateful lies about

[31:18] innocent people.

[31:22] >> And I think it came out of

[31:25] I just think it it came out of him

[31:27] nursing something that has made him

[31:31] behave worse.

[31:35] Now to this fundamental question,

[31:38] is all of this the result of

[31:44] the effort to bring more speech to the

[31:46] public square?

[31:48] >> And obviously the answer to some degree

[31:49] is yes.

[31:50] >> More speech equals more bad speech.

[31:52] >> Yeah. Um, and

[31:55] in all of life and particularly in all

[31:58] of public policy, as you as you have

[32:01] said, we made trade-offs. We have to be

[32:03] willing to live with the downside burden

[32:05] of freedom.

[32:06] >> Yeah.

[32:06] >> If we're going to have the upside.

[32:08] >> Charlie Charlie spoke about this very

[32:10] well on the Second Amendment as an

[32:11] example that and they people would try

[32:13] to dunk on him after his death that

[32:15] Charlie said, "America has more

[32:17] shootings than we would have if we were

[32:19] a totalitarian state where the populace

[32:21] was disarmed. Britain has a lower murder

[32:23] rate than the United States. But guess

[32:24] what? Britain is also a less free

[32:26] country. It is an unfree country

[32:28] compared to the United States. You can't

[32:30] speak freely there. You can't arm

[32:32] yourself freely. You can't do any number

[32:35] of things. America is a free country,

[32:37] which free people have the right to arm

[32:40] themselves and protect themselves. But

[32:42] there are downsides to that. That people

[32:44] commit murder. Sometimes they commit

[32:46] heinous shootings that wouldn't happen

[32:48] otherwise. That is the downside of

[32:50] freedom. And the way we fight against

[32:52] that is we find other ways to check the

[32:55] harms of that. So with guns that might

[32:57] be well we should make sure that people

[33:00] who are violent criminals who shouldn't

[33:03] have guns anyway are not able to get

[33:05] them. We should make sure people who are

[33:07] have literally been institutionalized

[33:09] for how mentally unwell they are. They

[33:11] probably should not have guns either.

[33:13] That's how you handle or we can harden

[33:15] our institutions. We can have more good

[33:16] people with weapons at schools or

[33:19] campuses or anywhere else to protect

[33:21] against what evildoers would do. Charlie

[33:23] talked about this.

[33:24] >> What do we do in free speech?

[33:26] >> In free speech,

[33:26] >> what do we do about Candace Owens?

[33:29] I think one of the responsibilities we

[33:32] have is we have to say a burden of

[33:35] leadership on the right is you actually

[33:39] have to be ready to

[33:42] reject and if necessary

[33:46] denounce and call out

[33:49] hateful lies. And I don't think this is

[33:52] a hard burden to meet because this isn't

[33:55] even like this genuinely isn't even a

[33:58] political issue. These people want to

[34:01] make the number one topic in America,

[34:04] whether

[34:06] like like like a trashy a trashy murder

[34:09] mystery subplot made into reality that

[34:14] Erica Kirk and Charlie's co-founders

[34:19] at Turning Point and the people he

[34:20] worked with for a decade plus that they

[34:22] all came together and conspired with

[34:24] Israel to have him murdered because he

[34:26] sent a text message saying he was

[34:28] annoyed that Jewish donor meet

[34:30] stereotypes and they thought, "Oh,

[34:33] Charlie said Jewish donors are

[34:34] fulfilling stereotypes." Well, luckily

[34:35] we have a kill squad in Utah. We can

[34:37] just take them out there like that. That

[34:38] is what they are saying. A completely

[34:40] ridiculous and unhinged thing. And it is

[34:43] a burden to if you want to be a leader

[34:46] in the conservative movement. And one of

[34:48] our things is we actually allow people

[34:50] who are podcast hosts, TV hosts,

[34:55] pundits to be leaders in our movement.

[34:58] You have to be able to call that out.

[35:01] And that's not a call for censorship.

[35:03] That's a call for judgment.

[35:05] >> Yeah.

[35:05] >> And that's what I tried to communicate

[35:06] in the Politico thing. He he would try

[35:08] to get me that. He says, "Well, you you

[35:10] pushed for ideas that people wanted to

[35:12] censor and now you're pushing now you're

[35:15] you're mad about these other views." And

[35:16] I said, "Well, it's pretty simple. The

[35:19] views that I was fighting for were

[35:20] correct. They were discriminating

[35:22] against white people and lying about it.

[35:24] they were doing this transgender lunacy

[35:27] and they were hurting innocent children

[35:29] and it was evil and

[35:33] that like it was true and we had to push

[35:35] back against that and if they tried to

[35:36] censor us they were evil to do it cuz

[35:37] censorship itself is bad but also they

[35:39] were censoring something that was true

[35:41] and

[35:43] if we're going to have freedom of speech

[35:44] we should at least be able to call out

[35:47] I'm not saying to call out something

[35:48] that's debatable not saying to even call

[35:50] out a political position I dislike we

[35:53] have to be able to call out something

[35:55] that is a total lie. And the stuff that

[35:59] has emanated from Candace and Baron

[36:01] Coleman and Ian Carroll and uh Jimmy

[36:04] Door are total lies.

[36:07] >> Isn't it already covered by the law? I

[36:10] mean, aren't we dealing with actual

[36:12] defamation? I I I don't think there's

[36:14] been a greater act of public defamation

[36:16] maybe in the history of the country.

[36:18] >> I' I'd agree with that. I think I think

[36:19] a great deal of it is very defamatory.

[36:22] Um, I I'm not going to say anything that

[36:25] would commit any person to a lawsuit

[36:28] because that that there's so much that

[36:29] goes into that. Do you want to spend a

[36:31] ton of time in court? Do you want to

[36:32] spend the money on it? Are you going to

[36:33] get anything out of it? Do they just

[36:35] become more famous? Any number of

[36:36] things. But yeah, I think uh

[36:38] >> you can't make Candace more famous. He

[36:39] has the biggest podcast in the world.

[36:41] Well,

[36:42] >> Joe Rogan's back at number one, I think,

[36:43] but Candace had the biggest podcast in

[36:45] the world.

[36:45] >> First, I just I just throw that out

[36:48] there to say I can't commit. I don't

[36:50] want to commit anyone. I think a lot of

[36:52] it has been very defamatory and

[36:53] certainly certainly the people who are

[36:55] non-public figures

[36:57] >> that our camera guy whose only sin is

[37:00] that he worked with Charlie for a decade

[37:02] longer than Candace did. He took

[37:04] Candace's headsh shot when she joined

[37:06] Turning Point and to then micro police

[37:10] every action that he took an SD card out

[37:12] of a camera. That's a crime. Why haven't

[37:14] they arrested him for this crime? I

[37:17] don't know. Have you called the police

[37:18] and asked them are they going to arrest

[37:19] him?

[37:20] Yeah.

[37:21] >> To just and they or to go after

[37:23] Charlie's chief of staff, Mikey McCoy.

[37:25] They go after him and they say, "Oh,

[37:26] well, he why did he why did he have his

[37:27] hands on his ears after the gunshot went

[37:30] off? Why did why did he have his phone

[37:31] in his hand to to bully and they do this

[37:34] over and over and over and over again.

[37:36] They want to hurt these people and

[37:37] herang them."

[37:38] >> And also, everything's nothing from it.

[37:40] >> And everything's premised on that

[37:42] there's a correct way to behave.

[37:43] >> Yes. in a terrible crisis.

[37:45] >> The correct way to behave when someone

[37:48] you know and love has been shot right in

[37:50] front of you and you don't know if

[37:51] they'll shoot again. So people they'll

[37:53] they'll call me Blake Nefspeed because I

[37:56] ran away. Yeah. You know why I ran away?

[37:58] Cuz I thought there would be more

[38:00] shooting and I didn't want to be one of

[38:02] the ones who was shot

[38:04] and I had nothing. I'm not on Charlie's

[38:06] security detail. I have no value to add

[38:09] by running up to Charlie and getting in

[38:10] the way of his security team and people

[38:12] getting him out of there. I have no

[38:15] value to add at this point other than

[38:16] try not to become a victim. Try not to

[38:18] add to the death toll of this.

[38:21] And they'll they'll go after me for

[38:24] that. They'll they'll they'll bully

[38:25] someone for how they reacted during a

[38:27] shooting, during a murder,

[38:30] not not for how they handled evidence,

[38:32] not how they handled anything else.

[38:34] They'll they'll go after someone for

[38:37] not walking the right way, not moving

[38:39] their hands the right way. It's

[38:42] self-evidently

[38:44] incredibly evil behavior. And a friend

[38:49] of mine had a had a had a good thing

[38:50] that she pointed out that we can't see

[38:53] inside anyone's mind. We can't see

[38:55] inside Vladimir Putin's mind. We can't

[38:57] see inside Candace Owens's mind. can't

[38:59] see inside the mind of one of those

[39:01] people who tried to attack Kyle

[39:04] Writtenhouse. We can't. We can only

[39:06] infer things based on what they say and

[39:10] what their behavior is. And every single

[39:13] thing that Candace Owens has done for

[39:15] the past year has been a giant,

[39:18] screaming signal that she is a

[39:20] malicious, hateful, dishonest,

[39:24] destructive

[39:26] actor in American life who is recklessly

[39:29] hurting innocent people, who is

[39:32] recklessly damaging

[39:36] the conservative movement, recklessly

[39:38] damaging the Christian church broadly.

[39:41] Yeah.

[39:42] >> In order to enhance her own fame and

[39:45] wealth and status and whatever else and

[39:48] that others are doing the same thing. It

[39:49] is incredibly clearly obvious that that

[39:53] is the case from her words and behavior.

[39:56] And it is a test of someone's

[40:00] good sense, a test of someone's own

[40:04] goodwill and whether they're malicious

[40:06] or or charitable, and a test of

[40:09] someone's leadership, whether they can

[40:12] see that fact, identify it, and if

[40:16] necessary, call it out.

[40:19] And it saddens me that a lot of people,

[40:23] people who I think should know better,

[40:24] are failing that test. That a lot of

[40:27] them, some of them have just said,

[40:28] "Seems like some weird podcast dispute.

[40:31] I'm just I'm just going to not get

[40:32] involved in it." Or, "We're a big tent.

[40:34] We have a lot of different points of

[40:35] view." People have tried to articulate

[40:37] this, and I think they're wrong. I think

[40:40] this is actually something of real

[40:42] importance to the conservative movement.

[40:44] Is this a movement that is going to

[40:47] pretend that we're okay with a year-long

[40:51] insane campaign of dishonesty against

[40:54] one of our important people and

[40:56] important institutions and organizations

[40:59] because if we're okay with that, we are

[41:01] going to fail as a movement. We'll fail

[41:04] because it's a moral failure, so we

[41:06] won't deserve support. and will fail

[41:09] because then you're going to empower all

[41:11] of these people to blow up and derail

[41:14] important work because of their

[41:17] self-interested obsessions. And that's

[41:20] one of the things that's when people go

[41:22] after our show for not talking about

[41:23] whatever thing they want to talk about.

[41:25] One of the things Charlie cared most

[41:27] about is he was such a he was a growth

[41:28] mindset person. He always believed find

[41:31] the good, emphasize the good, encourage

[41:33] more of the good things to happen. 100%

[41:35] how he handled anything with the Trump

[41:37] administration. Did he like everything

[41:39] the Trump administration did? No, he

[41:40] didn't like them bombing Iran that

[41:42] summer before. Uh there were other stuff

[41:45] he he I don't I don't want to speak at

[41:48] real things, but he he was he didn't

[41:49] think every single thing was good, but

[41:51] what he would do is he would focus on

[41:53] the good things because he wanted more

[41:55] of them to happen. And if anyone I I

[41:57] can't believe people haven't noticed

[41:58] this because we've had him as the number

[42:00] one guy in American politics for a

[42:02] decade. the best way to get things that

[42:04] you want from Trump is to say that thing

[42:06] you did that I like that that's so

[42:08] amazing do more of that. So I go we go

[42:11] on X and you see people say President

[42:14] Trump has betrayed us on deportations

[42:16] cuz they've only deported a million

[42:17] people and we need to get rid of 10

[42:18] million people and when actually you

[42:21] have to go we have record high numbers

[42:23] of arrests record high numbers of

[42:24] deportations in the border secure.

[42:26] That's so awesome President Trump you're

[42:27] setting records. Set more records. You

[42:29] are so awesome. if you get 10 million

[42:31] out, we'll build a giant gold statue of

[42:33] you on the border and it will be really

[42:35] cool looking. Like that's how one if you

[42:39] want good things to happen, that's how

[42:40] you do it. And it's also just the good

[42:41] thing to do to re to praise things that

[42:45] are worthy of praise.

[42:47] And

[42:48] we've always tried to do that on that on

[42:50] our show to tout things that are good

[42:52] because a lot of good things have

[42:53] happened in this country, including in

[42:54] the year since Charlie died. I've heard

[42:57] people say we could have had a huge

[42:59] crackdown on Antifa and there should

[43:02] have been this huge one. Would I have

[43:04] liked a bigger one? Yes. But here's

[43:05] something that also happened in the

[43:08] months after Charlie died. The DOJ

[43:10] brought a criminal case against a bunch

[43:12] of Antifa members who targeted an ICE

[43:14] facility. And they didn't just go after

[43:16] the person who, you know, pulled the

[43:17] trigger or whatever. Uh they went after

[43:20] the people who were secondarily

[43:21] involved, who were helping run the

[43:23] order, who helped destroy documents. and

[43:24] they went after them as full accessories

[43:26] to terrorist activities and they got

[43:28] convictions and they got strong

[43:29] sentences on those people. And I'll tell

[43:31] you who's flipping out about that, the

[43:33] left. They freak out about that. They

[43:35] talk about their political prisoners

[43:36] from Antifa who are in jail because they

[43:39] fought against the fascist Trump

[43:40] administration by trying to do terrorist

[43:42] stuff against ICE. They freak out about

[43:45] it. Our side does not brag about it

[43:47] nearly enough. I don't know that any

[43:49] show talked about it besides ours,

[43:50] >> right? And we try to flag that on

[43:52] deportations, on the border, on DEI

[43:57] stuff. There's so many wins there.

[43:58] There's so many good things to tout in

[44:00] this administration that would have

[44:02] never happened

[44:04] if Kla Harris was president. And

[44:09] instead,

[44:10] when we don't react to what Candace

[44:13] World is doing, it's not merely that

[44:15] we're enabling conspiracy theories. It's

[44:17] that we're

[44:19] seeding the field to people whose

[44:20] fundamental impulse is not growth

[44:23] mindset, it's a destruction mindset. It

[44:25] is I want to be number one regardless of

[44:28] who I destroy to get there. I will be

[44:30] king of the ashes.

[44:31] >> Yeah. I don't even think with Candace

[44:32] that it's regardless of who I destroy. I

[44:35] think that stand

[44:36] >> might be part of the point.

[44:37] >> Stand standing on the bones of her

[44:38] enemies is how she wants to do it.

[44:39] >> Yeah. And and so these these things are

[44:41] linked. These things are very much

[44:43] linked that

[44:46] one of the one of the worst things about

[44:48] losing Charlie beside I mean everything

[44:50] about it was horrible. But when I spoke

[44:53] to people in the immediate aftermath,

[44:55] people I didn't have much to do that day

[44:57] besides take text messages from people

[44:59] saying how are you doing? And what I

[45:00] would say over and over is I said I felt

[45:02] I felt ill. I I genuinely felt sick in

[45:04] my stomach the way you would after well

[45:07] it it felt like I was going to kind of

[45:09] throw up. And what I said is, I feel

[45:12] ill, not just because

[45:16] Charlie's dead and he was my friend, but

[45:18] because I know it will be so bad for the

[45:20] country to have lost him. And the reason

[45:23] I knew that would be the case is Charlie

[45:25] was such a he he was a he was a true

[45:28] leader. He focused on achieving good

[45:32] things for the country. That's not even

[45:34] to say Charlie was a perfect person or

[45:36] always made the right call. But that his

[45:39] moral center was so good that Charlie in

[45:42] everything he did was thinking what is

[45:44] my duty to God and my duty to my country

[45:46] and what will enable that to happen. And

[45:49] that made him that's what drove the

[45:51] growth mindset stuff that Charlie was

[45:52] always so happy to see other people

[45:55] around him succeed. He wanted to see

[45:58] people in the administration succeed

[45:59] because that was related to what he

[46:01] cared about. He wanted to see other

[46:02] people at Turning Point succeed. He

[46:04] wanted to see people that he had

[46:05] mentored get into Congress or get their

[46:08] own shows or be successful that way. He

[46:10] wanted to see even people who you might

[46:12] say as rivals succeed as long as they

[46:14] were if they were if they were doing the

[46:15] same things he cared about. He wanted to

[46:17] get wins. Like he could easily have

[46:19] said, for example, Matt Walsh does what

[46:22] is a woman? And he could be like, well,

[46:24] Matt Walsh, he's over at Daily Wire.

[46:25] That's like a rival thing or whatever.

[46:27] I'm going to be buttthard about that.

[46:28] But he didn't. He's like, Matt Walsh did

[46:31] a huge win for the country because he

[46:33] made what is a woman a stock question

[46:35] that you can ask everyone and they can't

[46:36] answer it. And he totally turned the

[46:39] tide on the transgender stuff. Huge win

[46:41] for that country.

[46:44] Again and again, that's how Charlie was

[46:47] approaching things. And it was so good

[46:49] for the country and the movement that

[46:51] this person who was also a charismatic

[46:53] figure because there's people who do

[46:54] that and they're just not as talented as

[46:56] Charlie. that Charlie was immensely

[46:58] talented and could get people to love

[46:59] and follow him and that that was his

[47:02] agenda is what made him this tremendous

[47:05] arguably historically important figure

[47:08] was that he had that combination. It's

[47:10] so rare to have people like that. And

[47:14] that one was taken away from us because

[47:17] some loser fixated on him while with his

[47:21] furry boyfriend in a small town in Utah

[47:24] and thought, "I'm going to go shoot that

[47:25] guy dead.

[47:27] and the contrast between

[47:31] and we just see it in everything that's

[47:33] happened since then that so many people

[47:35] who Charlie's example and leadership

[47:38] could have kept them was keeping them in

[47:40] check before have just been unleashed

[47:43] and

[47:45] hell and all of its evils have poured

[47:46] out as a result.

[47:49] You know, I know that there's I know

[47:52] that there's a obvious absurdity in what

[47:55] I'm about to say, but

[47:58] I'm more offended by this notion that

[48:01] [snorts] Erica didn't love her husband

[48:04] than I am by the notion that Erica

[48:06] murdered her husband

[48:08] because it's more plausible because it's

[48:10] smaller. You know, this argument that

[48:12] Candace has taken to making lately,

[48:14] which is Charlie, I'm so sorry you

[48:16] wanted loves. you wanted to be loved so

[48:18] badly and you never got to experience

[48:20] love. Uh the the the

[48:25] benality of evil, you know, the the the

[48:28] plausibility, the the smallalness of

[48:30] that accusation compared to the Egyptian

[48:33] airplane.

[48:33] >> There there's a similar one for me

[48:35] that's repeatedly bothered me and it's

[48:38] still happening. And uh there was one um

[48:42] Tucker's brother the other day made a

[48:44] joke tweet the other day where I think

[48:46] it was Laura Loomer or someone said

[48:49] who's attending this Shabbat dinner at

[48:51] the vice president's place and he

[48:52] replies like Shabbat shalom but no

[48:55] daddy's home something like that. And

[48:57] that's in reference to Erica said one of

[49:01] the great things in her week is Charlie

[49:03] he did his eccentric Christian

[49:06] evangelical Shabbat that he got from

[49:08] Dennis Prager. I I'd always tease him

[49:10] about this cuz I thought it was pretty

[49:11] it was but it was so important to him so

[49:14] important to his life that Charlie he

[49:17] Friday night he would send a message to

[49:19] our telegram chat. Shabbat shalom.

[49:20] That's what he would say. He would also

[49:21] sign off his show on Friday with it. And

[49:24] but when he sent that message Charlie

[49:26] was gone. I would not hear from him

[49:28] again until

[49:30] Sunday, usually midday Sunday or so that

[49:33] Charlie actually this incredibly

[49:35] talented, this incredibly important,

[49:38] this incredibly effective and like

[49:41] wanted person that people are always

[49:42] trying to talk to that he cut himself

[49:45] off from the world to have a day with

[49:47] his wife, with his kids, with his

[49:49] family.

[49:50] >> And that was incredibly important to

[49:51] him. And she said, he would come home,

[49:53] he'd say, "Daddy's home. send the

[49:54] Shabbat show message, turn it off, put

[49:56] it in the drawer, and he wouldn't look

[49:57] at it. And that Candace and others, they

[50:02] have ridiculed this. They have you can

[50:04] go buy uh I think you can buy a Daddy's

[50:06] Home shirt on Candace's site.

[50:10] Uh she suggested she suggested initially

[50:13] that it was made up. She thought she

[50:14] could get away with just lying. That she

[50:16] suggested that Charlie's book, Stop in

[50:18] the Name of God, which is his thing, why

[50:20] you should honor the Sabbath, that this

[50:22] was slapped together after he died, to

[50:24] push the idea that Charlie was pro, he

[50:27] was Zionist or pro-Jew or whatever when

[50:30] this is trivially easy to debunk because

[50:32] Charlie talked about working on this

[50:34] book on his show. They just thought they

[50:36] could get away with lying about that,

[50:38] that they could lie, that this this

[50:40] whole habit was made up. And then even

[50:42] after that lie is exposed, they still

[50:43] make fun of it. I think in at one point

[50:46] Candace tried to claim it was her idea

[50:47] for Charlie to do that. No, Charlie

[50:49] never gave you credit for it. He gennis

[50:51] Pger credit for it.

[50:53] >> Just it's so minor compared to the other

[50:56] things. It's so minor compared to you

[50:59] murdered Charlie or any of these grand

[51:02] conspiracies,

[51:03] >> but it's

[51:05] >> so integral to the deeper truth, which

[51:07] is that this is so hateful at heart.

[51:09] Yeah.

[51:09] >> To take one of the favorite things of

[51:13] the widow of Charlie where she says,

[51:15] "This is one of the most important

[51:17] things in our life together, in our

[51:18] romance together, and

[51:21] it was a lie. We're going to make we'll

[51:23] say it was a lie. We're going to make

[51:24] fun of it. We're going to ridicule you

[51:26] about it. We're going to bring it up in

[51:27] a hateful context over and over again.

[51:30] It shows how malicious this is. And it

[51:34] gets back to what I said. If you can

[51:38] look at that repeatedly and have people

[51:40] tell you about it repeatedly

[51:43] and say, "I don't see it."

[51:46] Something is wrong with you. And

[51:50] I'm not a person who likes to bother

[51:52] people all the time. So, for example, I

[51:55] have Tucker's number, but I've never

[51:56] made a habit of just sending him text

[51:58] messages, but I know a lot of people

[52:00] have. I know that Tucker is aware of

[52:03] what people have said about Erica, and

[52:06] for that matter, he's platformed it at

[52:08] times. He had Jimmy Door come on his

[52:10] show, and Jimmy Door is making fun of

[52:12] Erica for, oh, we had pyrochnics at an

[52:15] event because Charlie had loved having

[52:16] pyrochnics at events.

[52:19] And oh, and she's not she's she's not

[52:21] grieving the right way. She's grieving

[52:23] the wrong way and and she's totally

[52:26] they're all totally in on it. Charlie

[52:28] was really killed for this reason. He he

[52:29] just spiels off this twominute hate

[52:32] against Erica Kirk and against people

[52:34] Charlie knew at the end of it.

[52:38] Tucker just he he kind of has that like

[52:40] laugh like that suppressed laugh he's

[52:42] doing and he kind of says you we better

[52:44] end it at that. And I think the his

[52:46] episode ended there. And to me, that's

[52:49] like looking at it's like looking at one

[52:53] of those subway vagrants

[52:57] who's terrorizing someone in New York

[53:00] and, you know, screaming in their face

[53:02] and maybe even like pulling out a knife

[53:03] and menacing them and just standing

[53:05] there and thinking, "Not my problem."

[53:08] >> Yeah,

[53:08] >> that's how it feels like to me. And

[53:10] >> yeah, Buckley Carlson is obviously a

[53:13] malicious lunatic and you can't I I

[53:17] would be reluctant to

[53:19] blame Tucker for the behavior of his

[53:21] brother.

[53:23] Tucker's but Tucker's own behavior in

[53:26] having Buckley on the show even after he

[53:28] said these things having Dor on the show

[53:30] and letting Exactly platform that's his

[53:32] >> no I and I will say I have never called

[53:34] for Tucker to denounce his brother. I've

[53:36] never made some grandiose thing disavow

[53:38] your brother cuz that's an ugly thing to

[53:40] do. You don't you don't do that with

[53:41] people's family members. But I have

[53:44] asked him in privately if if he could do

[53:47] something and I would say if my younger

[53:50] brother whom I love if he was publicly

[53:53] beefing with and trashing and defaming

[53:54] somebody, I would go to my brother and

[53:57] say, "You need to you need to die. You

[54:00] need to cut this out." And I don't know

[54:02] if it would work. Maybe he'd refuse, but

[54:05] it would at least

[54:08] it would damage our relationship if he

[54:11] refused to do that. It would have an

[54:13] effect on it. If someone in my family,

[54:14] if I were to say, "It's important to me

[54:16] that you stop hurting this person who I

[54:18] know. It is important to me that you

[54:20] stop doing that. You can think whatever

[54:22] you want. I can't control what you

[54:24] think, but I would like you to stop

[54:25] doing it publicly."

[54:28] I would make that ask. And if they

[54:30] didn't do it, there'd be some there it

[54:32] would matter to me.

[54:33] >> Yeah.

[54:34] >> And that that's as you as you get at

[54:36] it's that he can say whatever he want. I

[54:39] can't control he does. He no one has to

[54:40] dis Tucker does not have to disavow him.

[54:43] But he's he's he's done the opposite. He

[54:46] has avowed him very aggressively. He's

[54:49] had him on his show. He said he's

[54:51] someone people should listen to and he's

[54:55] great. And that troubles me because I

[54:59] see and I get sent these things where he

[55:03] is ridiculing the Shabbat shalom thing

[55:05] where he's going after our camera guy

[55:08] where he's doing things that are that

[55:11] are indefensible.

[55:12] >> So you go to work at TPUSA HQ every day.

[55:16] >> This is where I always have to be

[55:17] weirdly technical. I don't work for

[55:19] TPUSA. I work for the Charlie Kirk show.

[55:22] I only I I just have to do that because

[55:24] for example I say political things and I

[55:25] can because I'm work at a private

[55:27] company and TP USA can't endorse

[55:29] candidates and all of that. Um and then

[55:32] there's there's this TP action which is

[55:34] the 501c turning point USA which is

[55:37] let's start you know chapters on campus

[55:40] let's talk about faith revival all of

[55:42] that and then Resolute Media makes the

[55:44] Charlie Kirk show.

[55:44] >> TP USA Faith.

[55:46] >> Yeah. TP USA Faith. Yeah. Exactly.

[55:47] >> But the but Resolute Media is the

[55:50] for-profit Yes. Charlie Kirk show.

[55:52] >> Yeah.

[55:52] >> Nevertheless,

[55:53] >> but yes, IQ.

[55:55] It's all it's all in one

[55:57] >> compound as it were.

[55:58] >> And so you on a daily basis interact

[56:01] with many of the people who've been

[56:02] implicated by all of these horrible

[56:04] conspiracies. And beyond that, you

[56:07] interact with people who continue to

[56:09] carry forward Charlie's legacy, who

[56:11] continue to do the work for which in

[56:13] many cases Charlie personally hired

[56:15] them, uh, or which the organization has

[56:17] gone on to hire in the in the promotion

[56:20] of Charlie's vision. Um, you work uh you

[56:24] see Erica Kirk as she leads that

[56:27] organization and tries to, I think, do

[56:29] one of the most honorable things I've

[56:30] ever seen a widow do, which is with with

[56:33] her hands and her feet push forward her

[56:36] her husband's vision and uh and make

[56:40] real his legacy in the world. Um, which

[56:43] is a true act of love, by the way, and a

[56:45] true act of sacrifice uh on her behalf.

[56:49] and you've watched them navigate this

[56:51] year of

[56:53] unimaginable unimaginable tragedy and

[56:56] grief, unimaginable crisis, unimaginable

[57:01] attack, uh unimaginable defamation and

[57:05] accusation.

[57:07] What's the temperature over there? How

[57:09] how are people

[57:12] how are people weathering all of these

[57:14] storms that have descended on TPUSA and

[57:17] its sunundry manifestations over the

[57:20] last 12 months? I think what's helpful

[57:24] is

[57:26] the extent to which one thing I point

[57:28] out a lot of the people who target us

[57:30] Candace for example they build nothing

[57:32] they Candace I I like to have a small

[57:35] team what that's a reflection of is all

[57:36] you are is your show and yourself and

[57:40] Charlie was not his show himself Charlie

[57:43] was building a he he wanted to build a

[57:47] movement

[57:48] >> and so he wanted it to be doing things

[57:50] and turning point is doing things. So,

[57:53] we have far more chapters than we had a

[57:56] year ago. So, we have more college

[57:59] chapters, more high school chapters. We

[58:01] want those to be nurtured and we want

[58:02] them to grow. We have Turning Point

[58:05] Action has the political stuff that we

[58:07] do chase the vote, try to, you know,

[58:10] improve turnout among low propensity

[58:12] voters uh who lean right and that is

[58:15] always ongoing. Uh we have our events.

[58:18] We want those to be bigger and more

[58:19] ambitious. So they started a young men's

[58:23] leadership retreat cuz we had the young

[58:24] women's leadership summit and then just

[58:26] the women's leadership summit. Uh now

[58:28] they're doing a men's one and we'll see

[58:30] if that grows. That could be very

[58:31] interesting and I don't know

[58:34] interesting. It could create a lot of

[58:35] good. Uh we had our student or not

[58:38] student our chapter leader summit was

[58:39] this summer in DC and it was the largest

[58:42] one ever. We'd previously done them and

[58:43] there'd be a few hundred. This time

[58:45] there are thousands there. We make it

[58:46] bigger. The goal is always

[58:50] I think what's helped keep things

[58:52] focused is that there the work always is

[58:55] continuing. We have we're still doing

[58:58] the campus events with big names. We're

[58:59] also doing pick up the mic which is

[59:01] people who are just student leaders,

[59:04] chapter leaders, maybe upand cominging

[59:06] lower level podcasters go on campus, do

[59:10] the debates the way Charlie did. And

[59:12] this both carries on his legacy and

[59:14] let's be frank, it's a it's a talent

[59:15] cultivation program. If you have 50

[59:17] people do these, maybe a few of them

[59:19] will be naturally really good at it or

[59:22] they'll develop to be good at it. And

[59:24] then those are people who can be

[59:25] carrying on Charlie's legacy when we

[59:26] need to be having campus debates 5 years

[59:28] from now, 10 years from now into the

[59:30] future. You can set a template that

[59:32] other conservatives are able to look up

[59:34] to. And all of that's happening. All of

[59:37] that is continuing. And so the attacks

[59:42] from from others, they matter a lot and

[59:44] they they really affect me because that

[59:46] I see it a lot. And I think one thing is

[59:49] I am a public facing person and I'm not

[59:51] at turning point. So I'm able to get

[59:54] into

[59:55] some some clashes more easily and if

[59:59] they're fixated on me, I can handle it a

[00:01] lot better. I think a lot of people they

[00:02] don't they don't want attention on them.

[00:04] I don't really want attention on me

[00:06] either, but I I will say,

[00:08] >> but you've got it.

[00:08] >> Well, so I went a weird blessing is what

[00:13] I went through in 2020. I got doxed. I

[00:14] got fired. It was humiliating. It was a

[00:16] big story. It was hugely stressful. It

[00:18] was the worst thing that's ever happened

[00:20] in my entire life. Not even close. Like

[00:23] I I think I had like the legit like when

[00:27] you get depressed, you kind of have this

[00:28] void in your stomach that feels awful.

[00:30] And it was there for a good 6 months.

[00:32] like I I I have to assume it's what it's

[00:35] like if someone if if your spouse dies

[00:37] or some similar level of extreme tragedy

[00:41] happens. Uh that's what it felt like

[00:44] just acutely terrible and it messed with

[00:46] my headsp space. Uh the thing I remember

[00:48] I read a lot. I once read 100 books in a

[00:50] year. I could not read a book for

[00:52] several months. I would open it. I I

[00:55] would read one page and I I couldn't

[00:56] think straight and I would just give up

[00:58] on it and put it away. And all of that

[01:01] was awful, but it toughened me up for

[01:05] this sort of thing. So now these ghouls,

[01:09] they'll attack me. They'll make weird

[01:12] make up weird accusations about me,

[01:13] weird implications. Candace will do I

[01:16] think she did a whole show about me last

[01:17] week and someone asked what I thought of

[01:19] it and I said, "I didn't watch it. It

[01:20] didn't bother me." Yeah.

[01:21] >> And

[01:24] I I try to do some of that fighting both

[01:27] because I think it these lies need to be

[01:29] fought against, but also because I think

[01:34] I have some moral obligation to speak up

[01:36] for people who don't have a platform or

[01:38] who

[01:40] are terrified of doing it. They're

[01:42] terrified of getting a bunch of people

[01:43] fixated on them. and

[01:47] I want to be able to stand up for them.

[01:49] And let those people in turn are usually

[01:52] more involved with everything else that

[01:54] matters. They're more involved with

[01:57] let's do the faith revive. Let's do the

[01:59] faith revival. Make heaven crowded

[02:00] events. Let's do let's make Afest the

[02:02] biggest ever. Let's make this the

[02:04] biggest chapter leader summit ever.

[02:06] Let's start this men's thing. Let's make

[02:08] sure we try to win these elections in

[02:10] Arizona because that's what Charlie

[02:11] wanted. They're doing the work on that.

[02:13] people are lying about them and I can be

[02:15] one of the ones who's going around

[02:16] saying that is an insane lie and you

[02:18] should be disgusted with yourself.

[02:20] >> I can really relate to this because

[02:22] obviously I went through the the worst

[02:23] thing I've ever gone through uh in 2025

[02:28] >> and it was humiliating and and

[02:32] so deeply tragic and painful

[02:36] and the same kinds of like um even like

[02:39] biological reactions that you're

[02:41] describing. But also during that time,

[02:43] Candace did a couple of shows about me,

[02:44] as did Ian, Carol and all these other

[02:46] guys, and I never watched any of them.

[02:48] >> I I have no I I mean, I don't I can't

[02:49] say I have no idea what they said. I

[02:51] know what they I know damn well what

[02:52] they said.

[02:53] >> I didn't have to watch in order to know,

[02:55] but I I've never needed to go like delve

[02:58] into every moment that someone's saying

[03:00] my name and subject myself.

[03:01] >> So So true story. I did I did that

[03:03] political interview. I have not read the

[03:05] whole article. [laughter] I'm I'm very

[03:07] self-conscious about myself. I don't

[03:10] like doing the center of attention. It's

[03:12] very bizarre even that I agreed to get

[03:14] profiled. And I kind of I literally just

[03:16] thought to myself,

[03:18] what would Charlie do? Charlie Charlie

[03:20] was one of those guys who thought no

[03:22] publicity is bad publicity if you're if

[03:24] you're handling it the right way. And

[03:27] that's that's kind of what I thought to

[03:29] myself. And

[03:29] >> you and I very much have this in common.

[03:31] I don't read reviews of my work. I don't

[03:33] read the articles about me.

[03:34] >> Yeah. It's another one of those hateful

[03:36] things where they they'll come out and

[03:38] they'll say Andrew and Blake are trying

[03:40] to replace Charlie. No, we're definitely

[03:43] not. We are trying to continue Charlie's

[03:45] work. And one of the things Charlie

[03:47] built is a show called the Charlie Kirk

[03:49] Show that carried his message to people

[03:52] and has an audience and Erica wanted

[03:56] that to continue. That's why that's why

[03:57] Charlie's social media still exists.

[03:59] Doesn't doesn't tweet new stuff as if

[04:01] it's Charlie. That would be ghoulish.

[04:03] that should exist because she says, "My

[04:05] husband dedicated his life to building a

[04:09] platform to building a message to push

[04:11] these things and the man who murdered

[04:13] him wanted to silence that and we have

[04:15] to fight against letting that happen."

[04:17] >> How long do you think you guys can carry

[04:19] the show forward? I mean, you you will

[04:22] you alluded to it at the beginning, but

[04:23] there will come a time where you're now

[04:25] talking about

[04:26] >> a world that Charlie never occupied.

[04:28] >> Yeah. I

[04:29] >> a new administration, a new

[04:31] >> My my easy copout is it will continue as

[04:33] long as Erica wants us to do it because

[04:35] she is in charge and if she if she wants

[04:39] it to be that way. Now I know Andrew and

[04:41] I have both speculated about this like

[04:44] for example during the preliminary

[04:46] hearing for Tyler Robinson. I think it

[04:48] was deeply meaningful to people that we

[04:49] could say this is the Charlie Kirk show.

[04:51] We are covering the pursuit of justice

[04:53] for what happened to Charlie. So, I

[04:55] think that would apply even more so to

[04:57] the trial itself whenever that comes.

[05:01] But would it still make sense to call it

[05:03] that after that years ago? I don't want

[05:06] to speculate to that. I I am overall my

[05:10] my mindset is to be a a good a good

[05:13] servant of someone. And Erica wants the

[05:17] show to continue and I think a lot of

[05:18] the audience want the show to continue.

[05:19] We get a lot of emails from them where

[05:21] they say, "Thank you for doing this.

[05:23] Thank you for trying to continue

[05:24] Charlie's voice and I want to be there

[05:28] for those people. But this idea that we

[05:31] want to replace them, absolutely not. I

[05:33] my I I've worked for two incredibly

[05:39] talented people,

[05:40] >> two worldclass talents at being

[05:44] charismatic voices in politics. And the

[05:47] thing that comes out when you do that is

[05:49] you realize the difference between

[05:51] yourself and those people. And that's

[05:54] even accounting that they're themselves

[05:55] very different people. But I am aware

[05:58] they have talents I don't have. And I

[06:00] have talents far more limited that they

[06:03] didn't have. And the the best role I've

[06:04] been able to have is trying to improve

[06:09] the

[06:10] words, improve the messaging of people

[06:13] who can have a massive impact on

[06:18] the direction of the country. I want to

[06:20] be able to improve the effectiveness of

[06:24] people who are better than I am. And an

[06:29] unfortunate thing is thanks to a variety

[06:32] of circumstances, including a hateful

[06:36] furry lover in Utah that there are not

[06:39] that many people who are like that who I

[06:42] can have that effect for.

[06:44] And it just it pains me immensely. I

[06:48] you'd get those questions, where do you

[06:49] want to be in 5 years? They love to ask

[06:51] that question. And every time someone

[06:53] asked me about that while I was with

[06:54] Charlie, I would say Charlie is clearly

[06:56] a person who is on a rocket ship ever

[07:01] flying upwards. And he's only getting

[07:04] better. He's getting better as a

[07:06] debater. He's getting better as a

[07:08] thinker. He's getting better as a

[07:12] political organizer. He's getting better

[07:14] as a Christian. He's getting better and

[07:16] better and better. And he's getting more

[07:18] famous. and I play some role in helping

[07:23] him become better like that and it will

[07:25] be good for the country. Why would I

[07:26] leave that?

[07:28] >> And that's the only answer I would ever

[07:30] give. People would say, "Do you want

[07:32] your own show?" And I would say, "Why

[07:33] would I want to have be the 60th best

[07:36] show on the right named the Blake Show

[07:38] when I could be an integral person on

[07:41] the most important voice on the right?

[07:44] Not even a question for me where I'd

[07:45] want to be." And

[07:49] It's in God's hands whether that

[07:50] continues or not. And

[07:53] God called Charlie home to him. And

[07:57] since then, the best thing I can do is

[08:00] especially because so many people want

[08:02] to lie about it and misrepresent it is

[08:04] to do my best to share with the world

[08:08] what Charlie believed in, what his

[08:10] message was, what he still has to offer

[08:14] it. because what he was it was so rare

[08:17] and exceptional

[08:19] and

[08:22] I'll continue doing that while I think

[08:24] that's the best course.

[08:26] >> God bless you for it. Thank you, Blake.

[08:28] >> Thank you very much.