Speaker 1: It is September seventeenth. I'm Steve Schmidt. This is the warning,
Speaker 1: and I am thrilled today to be joined by Aaron
Speaker 1: Parness of the Parness perspective. I think that one of
Speaker 1: the things we can all appreciate in this moment is
Speaker 1: that as this fascist curtain is descending on America, that
Speaker 1: correspondingly is the destruction of the media that for fifty
Speaker 1: years time the American people respected, the American people trusted,
Speaker 1: and the American media appreciated that when it celebrated itself,
Speaker 1: that it delivered the goods. The newsrooms were filled supposedly
Speaker 1: with people who would not bend, would not bow, would
Speaker 1: not capitulate. During my career, I've run at the highest
Speaker 1: levels a couple presidential campaigns. I've been in every newsroom
Speaker 1: you can think of. I've argued, cajoled, and debated with
Speaker 1: every editor at every news organization. The truth of the
Speaker 1: matter is I had a lot of respect for those
Speaker 1: people until I didn't, And on any given day it's
Speaker 1: hard for me to contain my contempt for their cowardice
Speaker 1: and their capitulance. And I think it's really important to
Speaker 1: appreciate the exchange yesterday that took place between Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and Jonathan carl of ABC News when Donald Trump looks
Speaker 1: at him dead in the eye and he says, well,
Speaker 1: your network engaged in hate speech against me, and they
Speaker 1: paid me tens of millions of dollars. And anybody who
Speaker 1: thinks that Donald Trump doesn't hold the high ground in
Speaker 1: that debate, that Donald Trump isn't scoring points in that
Speaker 1: should pull their head out of their ass. These networks
Speaker 1: made corrupt bargains with the devil, and the result of
Speaker 1: it is the American people in a time of crisis,
Speaker 1: can't tell what's real, can't tell what's not, can't tell
Speaker 1: what's up, can't tell what's down, can't tell what's left
Speaker 1: from right and right from left because of the failure
Speaker 1: of corporate media. But the First Amendment did not create
Speaker 1: NBC News Right and NBC News and it's collapse as
Speaker 1: a vessel of integrity or CBS or ABC does not
Speaker 1: eradicate the First Amendment. What the First Amendment creates is
Speaker 1: the ability for people in this country to say what
Speaker 1: they will, to believe what they want, and for the
Speaker 1: press to report what's happening. And so one of the
Speaker 1: people that does that and does it better than anybody
Speaker 1: else out there. A one man news network who you
Speaker 1: can trust, you can believe in, is Aaron Parnis. Is
Speaker 1: somebody that I watch, that I pay attention to. He
Speaker 1: is a go to news source and you can trust him. Aaron, welcome,
Speaker 1: Thanks you for having me. Super excited to be here
Speaker 1: and listen. I agree with a lot of what you said.
Speaker 2: I really think that the news media, the industry as
Speaker 2: we know it, is really not just dying but really changing.
Speaker 2: I think that the First Amendment is under attack in
Speaker 2: ways we've never seen before. And I mean the truth
Speaker 2: is so important in this day and agent. Right now,
Speaker 2: I don't know who to trust either in a lot
Speaker 2: of ways. So it's a very scary time.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of stuff to talk about. How do
Speaker 1: you sort through what's happening in say this is one
Speaker 1: two three four today?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I think so, I mean it's not
Speaker 2: even one two three four. I end up posting many
Speaker 2: are from twenty to thirty times a day most days.
Speaker 2: It really is a lot. I think for me, where
Speaker 2: I go directly, as I go directly to the primary source.
Speaker 2: In this day and age, there's so much information out
Speaker 2: there that when media reports on say something that Donald
Speaker 2: Trump says, it's often skewed in certain ways, whether it's
Speaker 2: the right to the left. I mean, there's so much
Speaker 2: bias out there, And so I go directly to the source.
Speaker 2: I go directly to the person who makes the statement,
Speaker 2: the bill that's introduced, and that's where I go to
Speaker 2: get all my information to then figure out, Okay, well
Speaker 2: let's see how we can report this to make sure
Speaker 2: it's factual, accurate. And and folks know because right now,
Speaker 2: what I've seen, at least is that the so called mainstream,
Speaker 2: the Times, the Posts, all these great organizations that people
Speaker 2: rely on for many years, well they're scared. They're scared
Speaker 2: in the reporting right. The way they frame stories isn't
Speaker 2: fully accurate anymore. Even if the details are there, the
Speaker 2: framing isn't isn't isn't right. And so I go directly
Speaker 2: to the source. Every single time.
Speaker 1: I'm watching CNN last week and John Berman, the anchor,
Speaker 1: is on a with a Democratic congressman. And the congressman
Speaker 1: I don't recall his name, but he was a former prosecutor.
Speaker 1: He's very measured. Do you know his name?
Speaker 2: Dateman from California's forty seventh.
Speaker 1: Okay, And I don't think the congressman was necessarily there
Speaker 1: to talk about the Epstein case. I think he got
Speaker 1: lassoed and dragged across the street. But what John Berman says, right,
Speaker 1: it's incredible. He goes, well, there's no reason to be
Speaker 1: suspicious that that Donald Trump did anything untoured with with
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein. And you know, if i'm if, I'm if
Speaker 1: I'm sitting there right and you say, well, there's no
Speaker 1: reason right to say that Donald Trump has been implicated
Speaker 1: criminally in this, right. I mean, that's a true statement,
Speaker 1: you know, so far as I know. But any reason
Speaker 1: that he should be suspicious, you know, for example, the
Speaker 1: birthday card that he denies. Right there there you go.
Speaker 1: But like when you see something like that, and you
Speaker 1: you see like the terror in a in a John
Speaker 1: Berman's eyes going out of his way to try to
Speaker 1: explicate Donald Donald Trump. Yeah, well, well how do you
Speaker 1: process that?
Speaker 2: It's concerning. So I was an attorney before I even
Speaker 2: did this work. And as an attorney, whether you're on
Speaker 2: whether you're on the defense side or the plaintiff's prosecution spense,
Speaker 2: doesn't really matter. You're always taught never to start at
Speaker 2: the conclusion and then work your way back. You're taught
Speaker 2: to start with the evidence and go piece by piece
Speaker 2: and work your way to a conclusion. When prosecutors are
Speaker 2: investigating in crime, they're not supposed to start with a
Speaker 2: suspect and then try to piece evidence in to make
Speaker 2: that suspect guilty. It's wherever the evidence leads them. And
Speaker 2: what the media is doing right now is what they
Speaker 2: shouldn't be is what lawyers shouldn't do, when what media
Speaker 2: shouldn't do is they're starting with this theory Donald Trump
Speaker 2: is not implicated, and they're kind of forcing everything into
Speaker 2: that theory. Why because they're scared of what Trump's response
Speaker 2: is to them. What they should be doing is saying, well, listen,
Speaker 2: you're right, Donald Trump is not implicated criminally, he never has,
Speaker 2: but he may never will be. But there is a
Speaker 2: lot of evidence to suggest that he is somewhat connected
Speaker 2: to Epstein. Right, he has the birthday book letter. Potentially
Speaker 2: he has his name in the files. Bloomberg's reported that
Speaker 2: the FBI has been instructed to redact his name from
Speaker 2: a number of files. He was at Marra a Lago
Speaker 2: with Epstein. He himself acknowledges a personal relationship with Epstein.
Speaker 2: There is smoke, we should be asking questions to see
Speaker 2: whether that smoke leads to fire. We shouldn't just put
Speaker 2: out that fire because we may be scared of what
Speaker 2: the President is going to do.
Speaker 1: Now. So that builds to what cash Battel says yesterday,
Speaker 1: And what cash Battel says yesterday is that there's no
Speaker 1: evidence whatsoever did Jeffrey Epstein trafficked any of these young
Speaker 1: girls to other men. And we know that's not true, right.
Speaker 2: I mean, for based on what the survivors have said,
Speaker 2: that's not true. Right. The survivors themselves have said that
Speaker 2: there is more than just Jeffrey Epstein involved in this,
Speaker 2: and so we know that not to be true. But
Speaker 2: I mean, ultimately it's a bit of a confusing situation.
Speaker 2: And that did Jeffrey Epstein himself traffic women to other
Speaker 2: high net worth powerful individuals? I don't know, did other
Speaker 2: high net worth powerful individuals conceal what Epstein was doing? No,
Speaker 2: what Epstein was doing worked in this kind of scheme, yes,
Speaker 2: And so the wording that they're using is so it's
Speaker 2: so I mean legal ease in a way, like they
Speaker 2: know what they're they're doing to try to like weasel
Speaker 2: them their way out of it. That's what Cash Footel
Speaker 2: is doing.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, Why is Cash fatal trying to expocate
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein from trafficking these girls to other women?
Speaker 2: I don't know, I don't know. I mean, truthfully, here's
Speaker 2: the thing, Like, at this point, Epstein is not on trial,
Speaker 2: right like, he's not he's he's dead. There's no prejudice
Speaker 2: in Pash Fatel just coming out and saying the truth
Speaker 2: here And ultimately that's why I think that the files
Speaker 2: just need to be released at this point. Let the
Speaker 2: public decide what Jeffrey Epstein did or didn't do. And
Speaker 2: if you're worried. And here's the thing, it's actually funny.
Speaker 2: One of the biggest worries that the Department of Justice
Speaker 2: has been saying for a long time for why they
Speaker 2: haven't released the files is because they say it'll implicate
Speaker 2: other people who have never been criminally charged. But now
Speaker 2: Cash Battella is saying that there aren't other people, and
Speaker 2: so that undercuts their original argument of why they weren't
Speaker 2: releasing the files in the first place. So I did
Speaker 2: there are other people that could potentially be criminally charged
Speaker 2: because there's some type of connection and therefore we shouldn't
Speaker 2: release the files so that we can continue investigating them
Speaker 2: and potentially prosecute them. Or there aren't these other people
Speaker 2: and therefore they're not releasing the files because they just
Speaker 2: don't want egg on their face. In terms of Trump
Speaker 2: being in them, I don't know.
Speaker 1: How do you process that contradiction as you're as you're
Speaker 1: doing that, how do you how do you hear it? Right? So,
Speaker 1: as as you're going along in your in your day,
Speaker 1: you're an attorney, you're a journalist, you're you're you're posting
Speaker 1: twenty times a day, does that immediately send a flare
Speaker 1: up for you that that is a that's just a
Speaker 1: major contradiction. Is that just par for the course? Does
Speaker 1: that register to you? Is just well, that's one of
Speaker 1: the you know, one hundred different contradictions that have happened
Speaker 1: today because you know they lie all the time. How
Speaker 1: does that How does that trigger for you? Yeah?
Speaker 2: I mean I think it's more the latter than is
Speaker 2: the former. But I will say with one caveat in this,
Speaker 2: in the Epsteine situation, I have spoken to so many
Speaker 2: of the victims several of the victims already. I've interviewed
Speaker 2: many of them, and every time I speak to them,
Speaker 2: their stories line up. I mean, these are these are
Speaker 2: They're not making this up. And it's not one story
Speaker 2: that's different from another. Every single story is almost the same.
Speaker 2: It's the same pattern of behavior, and it's the same
Speaker 2: kind of influence and control of wealthy and powerful people
Speaker 2: connected to Epstein. And so this kind of lie from
Speaker 2: the administration is very different from their other lies because
Speaker 2: there is this nefarious aspect of it that they're trying
Speaker 2: to conceal or at least push down the stories of
Speaker 2: these survivors. And these survivors deserve to know the truth.
Speaker 2: They deserve to know everything that happened regarding Epstein, Maxwell
Speaker 2: and anyone else connected to them, and it really seems
Speaker 2: like this administration doesn't want that ever to happen.
Speaker 1: There was a Air Force test pilot named John Boyd,
Speaker 1: and amongst the things that John Boyd did in his careers,
Speaker 1: he was assigned after the Korean War to assess air
Speaker 1: combat decision making because casualties were deemed high, to see
Speaker 1: if there was a decision making matrix that could be
Speaker 1: applied to make the American pilots faster. And what John
Speaker 1: Boyd came up with is something called the DA loop
Speaker 1: and stands for observe, orient decide Act. You think about
Speaker 1: it as a circle and the notion is and this
Speaker 1: has expanded to business schools and really the DA loop
Speaker 1: can apply to any competitive situation. And there is no
Speaker 1: exceptions to the oodle loop. You have the fastest oodle loop,
Speaker 1: you win, right, you can you can get through something
Speaker 1: where you observe, orient to it, decide what it is
Speaker 1: in an act. And it's something I've talked a lot
Speaker 1: about over my political career and campaigns. We want to
Speaker 1: have a fast oodle loop. And I view you as
Speaker 1: someone who is a very fast oodle loop in terms
Speaker 1: of your journalism, being able to look at something, orient
Speaker 1: to it, decide what it is, and act. And so
Speaker 1: I want to I want to talk about this last
Speaker 1: week in the in the United in the United States,
Speaker 1: and one of the things is that I try to
Speaker 1: put things into a historical perspective. And you don't ever
Speaker 1: want to loosely say that you know with a superlative
Speaker 1: that this moment is the worst right, or it is
Speaker 1: the greatest crisis, or the most dangerous rhetoric like right
Speaker 1: now today because because it's usually not, today's an important
Speaker 1: day in the history of this country. September seventeenth, it's
Speaker 1: one of the bloodiest days in American history. Today is
Speaker 1: the Battle of Antietam anniversary. For those who are Civil
Speaker 1: War fetishists and would like to see a second American
Speaker 1: Civil War, look at some of the pictures from the
Speaker 1: battlefield of Antietam. But what happened in America in this
Speaker 1: in this last week. And I don't mean about the assassination,
Speaker 1: I mean in the reaction to the assassination by the
Speaker 1: leaders of the of the American government. What did you say?
Speaker 2: Yeah? And I've actually told this to a lot of people.
Speaker 2: I really felt as though this past week is and
Speaker 2: has been a real turning point in the past decade
Speaker 2: of politics of just American society in ways that we've
Speaker 2: never seen before. I don't think it was ever this
Speaker 2: bad when Trump was almost assassinated last year. That wasn't
Speaker 2: that didn't feel like what this past week really felt like.
Speaker 2: And to me, it all boils down to a root
Speaker 2: cause that's been evident in our politics for a very
Speaker 2: long time. It's the political politicization of non political tragedies.
Speaker 2: And I say non political, not in the sense that
Speaker 2: Kirk wasn't political. He was political, and the shooting likely
Speaker 2: had something to do with politics. But a non political
Speaker 2: tragedy is gun violence. A non political tragedy is an
Speaker 2: aircraft crash, terrorists, terrorism attack, things like that, where in
Speaker 2: this day and age, we immediately weaponize and it's not
Speaker 2: just on the right. Both parties do this, immediately weaponize
Speaker 2: non political events and try to politicize them. Right when
Speaker 2: a plane crashes in Washington, d C. The first thing
Speaker 2: the right did was blame DEI. When Charlie Kirk is shot,
Speaker 2: before we even knew what the motive was, whether it
Speaker 2: was a political attack or not, the right was saying
Speaker 2: that it was the left fault. The left was saying
Speaker 2: that it was a far right guy immediately, and that
Speaker 2: is a problem because we don't know right and we still,
Speaker 2: I mean truthfully, to this day, we still don't know
Speaker 2: why Charlie Kirk was shot, the motive behind it. The
Speaker 2: evidence that was released from the Utah County Attorney's Office
Speaker 2: yesterday really didn't give us a ton more that we
Speaker 2: hadn't already known. And so we got into a point
Speaker 2: in American society, where I think that the politicization of
Speaker 2: these tragedies has become so bad that I don't know
Speaker 2: how we recover from it. And I in this past week,
Speaker 2: really it was really different in a lot of ways
Speaker 2: and ways that I've never felt before.
Speaker 1: I have a very specific reaction to this, and I
Speaker 1: think one of the things that I've tried to say
Speaker 1: is that no man, no woman can be held responsible
Speaker 1: after their existence ends for how living people react to
Speaker 1: their death. And so for me, you know, Charlie Kirk
Speaker 1: in his thirty one years is one of the great
Speaker 1: tragedies of this is that when you get a little
Speaker 1: older and you have perspective, I think from midlife looking back,
Speaker 1: you know, thirty one years of age, Charlie Kirk had
Speaker 1: a lot of road in front of him to come
Speaker 1: to different perspectives in life. And from my perspective, maybe
Speaker 1: he would have grown up from some of the things
Speaker 1: he did, he believed and he said. But whatever my
Speaker 1: thought about that, it is all etched in granite now
Speaker 1: and there is no next day for Charlie Kirk. And
Speaker 1: that's a terrible tragedy and one that I lament. There
Speaker 1: is the act of violence. I was on a podcast
Speaker 1: and a friend emailed the clip, and I thought when
Speaker 1: I was opening it that I was going to see
Speaker 1: him say something offensive, uh not be murdered, And I
Speaker 1: deplore that and have with every fiber of my being.
Speaker 1: But in the response in the aftermath, what I saw
Speaker 1: was the attempt by MAGA to turn Charlie Kirk into
Speaker 1: horse Vessel, the first martyr of the cause. I saw
Speaker 1: highly choreographed videography and photography of an open casket and
Speaker 1: fundraising pitches, which I think is sick, but that's my opinion.
Speaker 1: But what I also saw was and I don't think
Speaker 1: this has ever happened in the United States, and I
Speaker 1: want you to level set this for me from a
Speaker 1: journalism perspective. If I understood the government position, it was
Speaker 1: that if you don't love Trump enough, if you dissent,
Speaker 1: then you're a co conspirator in the murder of Charlie Kirk,
Speaker 1: and the government's coming after you with everything that it has.
Speaker 1: Vice President said that Stephen Miller said that in one
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump's closest confidants, Laura Lumer, called for mass murder,
Speaker 1: mass executions for those who de sent against Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Is there any exaggeration in my assessment of that, in
Speaker 1: your in your view of how of how I orient
Speaker 1: towards that, because that's what I heard.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that's what I That's what I heard too.
Speaker 2: Truth be told. But what I I will say, with
Speaker 2: the one caveat, I do think there's some exaggeration because
Speaker 2: I think that what Trump and co. Are doing in
Speaker 2: the aftermath of Kirk shooting is they have to do
Speaker 2: this publicly for their base, to consolidate MAGA, to consolidate
Speaker 2: Republicans around one kind of idea. They have to go
Speaker 2: out and say this was the left. They have to
Speaker 2: go out and say.
Speaker 1: Let me, let me chat, let me chat, let me
Speaker 1: challenge because I think you're doing political analysis now. I mean,
Speaker 1: they don't have to do anything, sure, right, they could
Speaker 1: have de escalated the situation. I mean, the greatest political
Speaker 1: speech extemporaneously in American history was delivered by Robert Kennedy,
Speaker 1: and it came in Indianapolis after the assassination of Martin
Speaker 1: Luther King. You said to give a political speech all
Speaker 1: black crowd, delivered from the back of a pickup truck.
Speaker 1: Told the crowd that Martin Luther King had been murdered
Speaker 1: and talked about we need more love in America, talked
Speaker 1: about one of the things, talked about his brother's assassination, said,
Speaker 1: a white man killed my brother. So I so the
Speaker 1: political motive of it. But they don't have to do that.
Speaker 1: But they are doing it.
Speaker 2: They are doing it, and they're doing it because that's
Speaker 2: all they know. In a way, they're doing it to
Speaker 2: consolidate this movement behind them. I mean, I will say
Speaker 2: it's interesting that they they're doing it. And then at
Speaker 2: the same time, the Deputy Attorney General Blanche he can't
Speaker 2: name which left leading organizations are actually going after. Right,
Speaker 2: if they were ready to go after all these organizations
Speaker 2: and these left leading personalities, presumably they would have at
Speaker 2: least one name. Donald Trump was asked about even Antifa,
Speaker 2: whether or not he'd labeled them a domestic terrorist organization,
Speaker 2: and he kind of punted on the issue and said,
Speaker 2: I kind of want to, but I don't know. It
Speaker 2: wasn't it's your answer. And it really seems like a
Speaker 2: lot of rhetoric and not a lot of action, which
Speaker 2: is me kind of emblematic of what the Trump presidency is.
Speaker 2: Over the past nine months, he has actually hasn't done
Speaker 2: a ton as president. He hasn't been able to outside
Speaker 2: of his executive orders, which are not law. Right, he
Speaker 2: can sign as many executive orders as he wants, but
Speaker 2: they're not law. He's passed one piece of real legislation,
Speaker 2: and the bypart is not The bypart is in the
Speaker 2: budget bill earlier this year, the big beautiful bill.
Speaker 1: That's it.
Speaker 2: Outside of that, he hasn't done a ton. It's a
Speaker 2: lot of rhetoric and not a lot of action. And
Speaker 2: I see the same thing happening here, honestly.
Speaker 1: So I think that this is a really fair point.
Speaker 1: But I'll be honest, it scares the shit out of me.
Speaker 1: And here's why. Right, if we were on the edge
Speaker 1: of a lake and there was thin ice on that
Speaker 1: lake in the winter, I would not step out on
Speaker 1: the ice anywhere on the lake. Right. What you're saying
Speaker 1: is and no disrespect on you're like, there is thin
Speaker 1: ice on the lake, right, But you can walk out
Speaker 1: on the lake here, right. The thing ice is out
Speaker 1: there somewhere, right. And is the question of he means
Speaker 1: it or he doesn't mean it, And he's saying it
Speaker 1: because he's producing a television show. But for me, you
Speaker 1: just raise something that I think is the greatest journalism
Speaker 1: failure of the last ten years. Do you do you
Speaker 1: think this is a fair statement what I'm about to say.
Speaker 1: There's not a single interview that I'm aware of that
Speaker 1: would close the gap between what we're talking about here,
Speaker 1: right between what he says and his intentions. There's not
Speaker 1: a single interview that anyone has done in ten years
Speaker 1: time that probes Donald Trump at a deep philosophical level. Agree,
Speaker 1: not one, not one right, not one that would say, well,
Speaker 1: but if you if you could hang one of your
Speaker 1: political opponents, would you would you like to r Do
Speaker 1: you believe in that? And this is important in this
Speaker 1: country because you know, when George Washington rode into New
Speaker 1: York City at the end of the American Revolution, one
Speaker 1: of his first stops was out the loyalist presses who
Speaker 1: defamed him constantly and his wife, which pissed him off.
Speaker 1: And you know what he did. He posted guards outside
Speaker 1: the presses so the patriots wouldn't burn them down, because
Speaker 1: he understood the importance of the free media to a
Speaker 1: free society. Yeah, it is appalling. I'm with you, do
Speaker 1: you think just looking ahead? And I know we got
Speaker 1: to wrap it up here in the next couple of minutes.
Speaker 1: What's going to happen at this memorial service? What are
Speaker 1: you picking up from MAGA, What is the plan for this,
Speaker 1: and what is the message that you anticipate that the
Speaker 1: country will hear, because it's it's not going to be
Speaker 1: a unifying one.
Speaker 2: Do they have it's this weekend, right.
Speaker 1: It's the twentieth.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's not going to be a unifying one. Actually,
Speaker 2: in a lot of ways, I think that any action
Speaker 2: from this administration or anything like they're they're waiting until
Speaker 2: after the memorial to do anything, kind of like you
Speaker 2: know how they mourn political leaders in other countries. They
Speaker 2: wait for this big state funeral and then they go
Speaker 2: after whatever they have their response afterwards, And I feel
Speaker 2: like that's what's happening here. I'm actually worried about the
Speaker 2: rhetoric that's going to come from this funeral. I think
Speaker 2: truth be told. I don't think any media company should
Speaker 2: be covering the funeral because I don't think that they
Speaker 2: didn't cover the funeral of like other leaders who passed away.
Speaker 2: Whether I don't remember the coverage about Melissa Portman's funeral,
Speaker 2: but I can tell you it was nothing close to this.
Speaker 1: Not only are they gonna, well, I was gonna. I
Speaker 1: mean we have an NFL Sunday, I guess the twenty.
Speaker 1: I mean, they'll cover it like it's a presidential funeral.
Speaker 1: Do you think do you think that maga. Do you
Speaker 1: think that maga white House officials or threatening networks or
Speaker 1: have any information that you best cover this or there'll
Speaker 1: be consequences.
Speaker 2: I don't think explicitly, but I think him suing The
Speaker 2: New York Times this week is in a very implicit
Speaker 2: threat to any major major media organization. His lawsuits are
Speaker 2: the threats. I think that if none of them cover it,
Speaker 2: I think, though, I think they'll get a truth social
Speaker 2: posts and potentially a lawsuit for sure.
Speaker 1: Why aren't you afraid?
Speaker 2: I am afraid. Of course I'm afraid. I'd be lying
Speaker 2: to you effects that I wasn't afraid. But to me,
Speaker 2: the truth and fighting for the truth is more important
Speaker 2: than one fear. And so it's just and I know
Speaker 2: that with all the hate and vitriol and silencing coming
Speaker 2: from the White House on the other side right now,
Speaker 2: there's a whole host of folks opposite to the White
Speaker 2: House who are ready to fight back if they try
Speaker 2: to make an example out of me or any of us.
Speaker 1: What are you afraid they would do? Do you?
Speaker 2: I think for me, my biggest fear, honestly from as
Speaker 2: a lawyers is a lawsuit. I mean you can bankrupt
Speaker 2: someone immediately by suing, so that that's a big fear.
Speaker 2: I mean I've gotten threats to my home and in
Speaker 2: my mailbox and in my dms. Most are not actionable,
Speaker 2: but obviously there's a fear that, like you're walking down
Speaker 2: the street and it's like you could be next in
Speaker 2: a way, right, like someone could come and just beat
Speaker 2: you up. I'm not saying someone's going to drive down
Speaker 2: the street and try to shoot you. That not necessarily
Speaker 2: fearful of that. It's more of like you don't know,
Speaker 2: It's more fear of the unknow of like what could
Speaker 2: happen out there, because no one thought that Charlie Kirk
Speaker 2: would ever be assassinated, Like no one could have imagined
Speaker 2: that to have happened, and so there's so much unknown
Speaker 2: of what could happen, and that rate there is scary.
Speaker 1: You're brave guy, keep up the good keep up the
Speaker 1: good work, and uh if for everybody out on with
Speaker 1: us today. I really encourage you to subscribe to Aaron.
Speaker 1: It is a great, great, great platform to get a
Speaker 1: handle on what's happening factually with no BS, no spend,
Speaker 1: no side integrity matters a great deal when it's being
Speaker 1: lit up everywhere into flames, and so Aaron Partner, it's
Speaker 1: a real pleasure to have you with us today.
Speaker 2: Thank you, thank you, thank you. Hope to be back soon.
Speaker 1: Continue these absolutely take care, Aaron Partner said, everybody, I'm
Speaker 1: Steve Schmidt. This is the warning. I invite you to
Speaker 1: join this community where I promise to be honest, blunt
Speaker 1: and direct about what is happening in this country. America
Speaker 1: is in crisis. Follow and subscribe to this channel and
Speaker 1: on substack. Thank you.