Free Speech on Trial: A Conversation on Human Rights With Evan Turk

Okay everyone, I know I get very excited and hot and sweaty and all that good stuff. Okay, welcome to Adrienne Barker Speaks, and yes, yes, I know that he's handsome. My guest is brave, bald, good-looking, and his name is Evan Turk, and I don't know anything about him. All I know is that he was very patient because we are streaming live on Chatter Social. And Kate, thank you for being in the room. If you would like to speak, we would love it. Evan, we're on this app, so we're streaming live on like 3 places on Facebook, 2 places on YouTube, one on LinkedIn, one on X, and live with ChatterSocial. Kate, are you able to unmute and say hello? I am. Hello. I was just sent over by JB to tell you that he's back in the room if you wanted to go in there. If it's not too late, I could stream live there. Yes, ma'am. Okay, that sounds great. So everyone, I'm going to— oh, wait, I don't even think I need to be right back. Be patient with me for 1 second. We're go— I'm going to just go into another room. Thank you, Kate, so much. I think this is really exciting. You'll be able to hear from a lot of voices. Evan, this will be an experience you've never seen before. So, okay, so you made me a moderator in the other room. He said he will when you come back if you're not in there right now. Oh, okay. If he could, if he could do it, I'm going to, I'm going to stop and I'm going to see if I'm in there. Evan, just hold, um, okay, hold on. Sorry about this. Let me, um, let me go in. Let me close this for a second.

I can't hear you anymore.

B affects cancer. Okay, I see I had to redo that again. Okay. All righty, I can hear you. You can hear me? Awesome. Okay, Evan, so first of all, I'm gonna— I'm going— we're live still, so I'm very excited, you guys. Very excited to have everyone here. Evan is on Adrienne Barker Speaks, No Prep Needed, and when I say I truly don't know who my guest is I truly don't know who my guest is. I know he's a good-looking guy. I see the Esquire, and I know a little enough information that I put in the stream. But Evan, I don't want the focus on me. I'm not looking good today. You are looking great. I just want to show you what it looks like on Chatter. So let's see, why is— let me go like this so you guys can get to see this lovely man. All right, let me just show you. This is Chatter Social. So you've got a nice audience here. And, uh, guys, if you want to speak, you just unmute, just one at a time. So Evan Turk, welcome to Adrienne Barker Speaks. Thank you for your patience, first of all. I really appreciate it. So who are you?

That's, uh, it's a, it's a good question. I'm trying to figure that out myself. I'm, uh, I'm an attorney. I run a law firm called Turk Law Group. I also I'm into philanthropy. I also serve as the CEO and founder of a civil liberties 501(c)(3), namely the American Rights Alliance, which is combating a lot of national issues with people who are falsely imprisoned and others who are fearful of speaking out. In a society right now that has evolved to, or devolved in some ways. And I'm just trying to protect people's civil liberties. It's founded by our principles in the US Constitution.

So, Attorney Turk, I want to introduce you, if Jonathan Bing is available. We're actually live in a room, a very special room called Debate the News, and Jonathan Bing is the owner and the creator. Jonathan, are you available?

Uh, yes, I am actually.

Okay, just want to make sure that you both meet. So Attorney Turk, please meet Jonathan Bing.

Hi, Jonathan.

Pleasure's all mine.

So I am totally open if anyone wants to ask any questions. Let's go a little deeper into what you were talking about as you're saying about the civil rights. I'd like to— can we get an example of what that really looks like so I can understand?

Absolutely. We have a woman by the name of Tina Peters is one of our clients who's in jail right now. She was head of a county supervisor of elections that during the 2020 election, they asked her to destroy data which would have breached the federal law, election law. And in the state of Colorado, they demanded that she did it. She backed up the information with a whistleblower, and now she's faced— she's in jail with an 8-year sentence. So we're trying to get her out of jail. This is completely unconstitutional. Somebody who is trying to protect election integrity shouldn't have an 8-year sentence. Should have no sentence whatsoever. 76-year-old woman with no prior criminal history whatsoever. We have a ton of people who have been weaponized because they've been outspoken, and now they're either serving time in prison or have civil, civil, um, action, civil warfare, political warfare against them. We have a lot of national cases. On that. We're doing a lot of pardon work. We just got a pardon from somebody after the president gave everyone in January 6th a pardon. This one judge decided that that wasn't appropriate and put him back into jail. So we got a full presidential pardon 2 weeks ago. We're just doing a little of everything. We're not a political organization. We are here to help people based on constitutional principles. And what we're seeing here right now is just unconscionable. And we are here to combat freedom of speech, to protect freedom of speech, combat anyone who's opposed to it. We have no society without that freedom of speech. Without that, we can't be free to do what we need to do to make grievances to the government, to speak out for what we passionately agree with. And even though we may not agree with everybody, we also try to protect those freedoms of speech so that they can say it, just like you and I can say what we want to say.

I can say anything but not there's a bomb in the airport, right?

You'll be surprised. Well, I wish it was that easy, but not anymore. We're seeing people who have been weaponized, criminalized by a weaponized system. So it's just really, really Incredible. And you see countries like England where people don't have freedom of speech on social media, Canada as well. If we don't fight it, it's coming here next. So, you know, we can't just take these freedoms lightly because they're slowly taken away from us.

Thank you, Attorney Turk. So, so explain to the audience that's listening regarding— I saw President Trump's name in your bio and then I saw Donald Trump Jr.'s name, just so that we can understand where they fit in, or that you were attorney with them. If you could share that, just so that I understand it and the group understands it.

So I work with an attorney named Peter Tickton. Peter Tickton has been, um, practicing law for over 50 years. He went to military school, high school, with the president. So, uh, Peter says he's his oldest friend. I said, that's because you are his oldest friend. You known you since high school. And, um, we were able to, uh, help and represent the president through, uh, Alina Habba, who appointed Peter as local counsel. So we've done a lot of things. And now with the help of Donald Trump Jr. and others, we are able to, um, form this organization in a way and run this organization in a way that is very helpful. To spreading the message and to really get what we really need to protect protected so that we have a country to give to our next generation. And I keep saying this is not a political organization. It's not— you don't have to have a Trump philosophy or a conservative Republican philosophy. You have to have an American philosophy and an understanding of what the Constitution meant. What it means and why it's worthy of being protected.

So, Attorney Turk, you know, I— as I said, we're live on Chatter Social, and Jonathan Bing is the owner and the creator of Debate the News. And part of what he does is really allowing us and giving us a voice for those that come in to debate. Lovely. And we have, you know, both sides coming in. And I'm not like— I'm not the greatest when it comes to these kind of conversations. But my first question is really, is someone finding you, or are you, are you seeing a story on the news and saying, oh, this is someone that we can help? How does the initial contact work?

People are finding us. We do a, a show on a network, a national network called Real America's Voice. It's called A Case for America. We air that every Saturday at 4 o'clock. It's an hour show where we overview the cases that, uh, we're highlighting, um, that are pretty much unconscionable. So that audience finds us. Um, I would imagine there's, uh, quite a bit of people that watch that show, and, uh, you know, we're never short of work. Unfortunately, there's so much that problems that are out there that we can never stop 7 days a week. So, you know, we're not marketing ourselves. I guess, you know, talking about being on a podcast, I guess this is marketing the charity and one of the reasons why I do it. But, you know, we're not readily marketing ourselves. The cases Find us.

Got it, got it. Have there been more cases in the, in the past, let's say, 5 years?

I mean, our charity has been around for a couple of years now, so, um, we really started out to help people on January 6th. Um, if really you understood, or in the audience understood, what truly happened, I think most people would be shocked because it's not what you heard on mainstream media. So that's where we started, but we've evolved and we're representing all types of cases, all types of people on both sides of the political aisle. What we're really trying to do is keep America principled in its values based on the US Constitution. I keep saying that, but it's really our core mission is we have this amazing freedom, but it's being taken away from us and it's scary. We have people who, one case that we're working on, over a billion dollars of his hard-earned business assets were taken and it went up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said release those assets. And then they took it under another false pretense. And this guy can't really fight because he's in jail with no assets. Um, it's anti-capitalism, it's anti-America. And, uh, we all have this American dream, and still this is the best country to make it. But we shouldn't fear becoming successful and having imprisonment as an outcome for being a capitalist. I mean, it's not—

Adrian, are we allowed to ask questions?

Oh yeah, absolutely. I was going to— sorry, sorry, Attorney Turk, finish what you're saying, and then Jonathan Bing would like to come in. Oh, Jonathan, take—

no, Jonathan, I could talk forever, so please interrupt, ask me a question.

Okay, now you said this, uh, the country is devolving, and your, uh, opening, uh, statements Uh, can you, uh, give us a bit more information on how this country is, uh, devolving?

Yeah, where freedom of speech is no longer as free as it once was. Um, we have a media that if you say anything, you're going to, uh, be taken off a platform. You have— take the 2016 election where or 2020 election where, um, the New York Post had evidence to support, um, Hunter Biden's laptop, and the Department of Justice, uh, basically, uh, eliminated that from happening, um, and calling it false news. And anyone who actually reported it on any social media platform was deplatformed. I mean, that, that's incredibly, incredibly political, um, anti-American, anti-Constitution, anti-the Constitution, against everything that we, we believe in. And oh, by the way, we found out that that information was true, it was accurate, and they knew it, but you couldn't—

it wasn't quite, it wasn't quite accurate. But let me— can I ask you a question? How do you feel about it?

It was completely accurate because it was the Bible.

There's a lot of this stuff that was, uh, no, but a lot of stuff had been messed with at that so-called computer shop that they had. And then the way they did it was totally illegal.

But my question to you is, I can't, I can't answer a question when you just made a blanket statement that I have no idea what you're saying.

So if, John, then please No, this is two, there's two. But what I'm saying is that laptop, that we did not ever find out that everything on there was true. We know a lot of stuff was AI generated on there.

We don't actually— that all—

what proof do you have? What proof did— what proof did you have that everything on that laptop was true?

The Department of Justice came clean with it and said it was true and it was accurate, and they retracted. What department?

I mean, which Department of Justice?

Let me share with you, and this is the problem, and I, I, you're entitled to your freedom of speech, Jonathan, really are.

But it's not Jonathan.

That's not Jonathan. That wasn't me.

Oh, it's not Jonathan.

All right, I'm sorry.

It's okay, it's okay.

It's all I'm doing is looking at myself here, so I don't see anybody, or I, I don't know anyone I'm speaking.

But let's scratch, let's scratch the laptop because there's neither here nor there, right? Let's, let's talk about what's going on right now in this country. How do you feel about the Epstein files and the cover-up that's going on with these things?

I, I think it's crazy. I don't, I don't understand it at all. I don't understand why, uh, the information's not being released now, and I don't understand why it wasn't released under the prior administration.

And well, we know why it wasn't released under prior administration because it was appeals going on. And you can't release that stuff during an appeal because it could hurt the, you know, case or whatever. But right now, while Trump had the ability— just say Biden could have did it, okay, he was wrong for not doing it. Trump got the ability, him and his DOJ got the ability to make it right. Why are they fighting tooth and nail to keep this stuff from being released? Do you think they're covering up for other people, or Trump is covering up for himself?

I don't think Trump is covering up for anybody. He told everybody, release the information. I don't know why the people in Congress are fighting it tooth and nail. I mean, you know, there are certain congressmen, whether they're Republicans or Democrats— I mean, some happen to be Republicans, and, you know, makes you question all of that. I, uh, you know, I'm not here to support what happened to the Epstein case, and I'm not here to be political and and say, you know what, if this looks bad against one side, then let's have a different answer than if it looks bad to the other side. I'm trying to be apolitical here. I do not know why the Epstein file hasn't been completely released, and it scares me and it shocks me. And that's what we do as a charity. We have a right to get information, right? We have a right to know what's going on. And at the highest levels, why isn't that information being released? Why, why, why? Since we know certain people that were there on the Epstein plane— take, uh, Bill Clinton was there 27 times, I believe. Um, why is it Donald Trump?

He was at Donald Trump wedding. It seemed like him and Donald Trump were really close friends at one point. But my thing is, it was all Epstein and Donald Trump. They're really close friends. Epstein was at his wedding. and it seemed like they was very fond of each other at one point. My thing is it was all Republicans that was fighting against. 100 of the Democrats voted to release them. But yeah, I mean, at one point only four, I think only four Republicans voted to release it. The other ones didn't.

No, I think it's a red flag, right? No, I think four voted to not release them and the rest did and.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Absolutely. Hold on, hold on. Like you told me, we can't, can't just run past that point. It was only 4. I think Marjorie Taylor Greene was the lead in that effort, and she couldn't get one more. I think they needed 5, and she could only get 4. If they would have got 5, it could have been released. My numbers might be off by one or two, but the majority—

look it up right now. How many Republicans blocked the Epstein files?

No, well, if I can jump in, if you recall, uh, the reason that the House was out of session was because, um, Michael Johnson— Mike Johnson— Michael Johnson, uh, kept them out because that gave the, the final vote that was needed in order to go ahead and have the vote. So, so, uh, that, that definitely is incorrect, and he's correct, there was only 4 support Republicans supporting, uh, that bill initially until Trump finally, uh, felt he had nowhere to go and he said, hey, you know what, uh, go ahead and vote for it. So, uh, he's absolutely 100% correct in that assertion. Also, you know, you, you did make that statement.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, you're saying 100%— this is, this is the problem we have when, when we discuss these things. Somebody says it's, it's 100% correct, therefore it's 100% correct without fact-checking it and without knowing what the, the truth is. So I can't just allow that to happen without fact-checking it, um, because I don't—

you're more than accurate.

We completely talk about this every day. It only takes you like 10 seconds to fact-check it.

I'm fact-checking it now. It's taking more than 10 seconds, and that's, that's not true. Over 300 unique instances, but no single tally exceeds 211 House votes to block it. Um, who blocked it? Democrats and Republicans. Democrats pushed hardest for release but held minority status so they couldn't force votes. So some ex-posts claim Democrats block Republican efforts, but evidence shows GOP majorities control the blocks in Congress. Current status with the bill signed— I mean, I don't see 4 people, uh, a majority. With the bill signed, full release is imminent. Partial docs already show Epstein ties to figure across parties. For example, Bill Clinton mentioned 50 times, but now no new charges. No evidence implicates Trump in crimes despite speculation. I mean, so a lot of what we were just discussing is not factual. It's what, what, what media site you hear and how, how the news you wanna hear it to be disclosed.

And, but nothing contradicted nothing. Nothing.

Yeah.

Nothing contradicted what he was just saying.

I don't see 4 people, uh, all but 4 people, um, all but 4.

You must not keep up with the news a lot. You don't remember, it was Marjorie Taylor Greene. I can't remember the 3. I'll get the names in a minute. But early on, that's why she was showing up right before, right before Charlie Kirk got killed. She was leading the way. She could— if they would have got 5 Republicans, it would have had enough votes to release them. They could only get 4.

They couldn't get that one person.

And then, hold on one second. And then when they got the, the, the, the, uh, I can't remember the woman name. She won, and Mike Johnson, Arizona, in Arizona, she refused to swear in because her vote would have got them released.

And he would—

he went weeks without swearing her in. And he, he, he, he, uh, and it went through the shutdown and they finally swore in.

I don't know. I don't know what you're talking about. I don't know who he is. Speaker:2] Mike Johnson.

The Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson.

[Speaker:1] Okay, so what did Mike Johnson do?

[Speaker:2] Okay, just don't— let's not talk over each other. Attorney Turk is a guest of mine on Adrienne Barker Speaks. We're live on the podcast and we are streaming out to about 10 locations. So just when you speak, just, you know, let it be a conversation. We won't talk over each other. And then introduce yourself too. Too's name is actually T-O-O. That's how he goes on with this app, and we all love him. But, um, too, just, uh, and I'm not even sure too if you know, if you were here when Evan, um, Turk, the attorney, introduced himself and what he actually does. Um, so, uh, finish the conversation, and then Evan, maybe we could just do a quick reset so you can hear.

I'm good, I'm good. I didn't know what type of— I don't know what type it is. I'm good.

I'm about—

I ain't got one. I don't know but one way. I go 100% or none at all. I'm sorry, I didn't know this was being broadcast out.

No, no, no, we love your passion. I think that's great, and I think, um, Attorney Turk doesn't mind. It's just it can be confusing sometimes. But, um, Jonathan, did you have, um, other questions regarding exactly, you know, what Attorney Turk actually does?

No, no, not at all.

I— it's, it's— he is clear. I mean, and the truth can be confusing at times, so, uh, and I get it. So I'm gonna mute up a little bit as well.

So Attorney Turk, what— you're on the podcast and I'm so thrilled that you said yes. I usually do business podcasts, so I don't really talk politics. I— on DTN, it's very rare that I speak up. But my question to you is, what, um— so you're on the podcast, what are you hoping to achieve? Like, what is our goal? What— how can we help you?

I just like to get our name out there. Um, I don't mind having debates with anybody, I— as long as it's respectful. I don't want to be disrespectful to anyone else, and I like to, um, really learn about other opinions because we all can be wrong, right? But to answer your question is I just want to open, um, the charity up to all people of all different opinions because we're not a conservative or Republican-driven 501(c)(3). We're not political. We're apolitical. We're just trying to protect what I think all of us could agree on is the First Amendment. The freedom of speech shouldn't be based upon just what you agree with, but it should be, you know, most protected in the things that, you you disagree most with. Because if we don't have an open discourse and a public discourse of conversation, then we no longer have a free country. And we don't have a country which, you know, has stood the test of time since the beginning. But free speech also allows us to evolve, to get rid of things that we were against. But the thing that we should never ever take away is our ability to address our opinions. Even if we're wrong.

I love that, Attorney Turk. And I, I think you would actually enjoy the room of the Debate the News, uh, Chatter Social. So we're live on Chatter Social. I'll send you the link. For the listeners, C-H-A-T-T-E-R Social. You can find it, um, in your app store. You can look for the website, ChatterSocial.io. And that's exactly what we do every single night, is really have some fantastic discussions. So how, how are you raising the funds for this 501(c)(3)?

Getting the word out. We have certain donors that are really generous, have been considerate. And we also, on each of the cases that we have been working on that we, we raised money, we have— we're blessed to have people write articles about us. And that brings attention to it. And we also do fundraisers, calls, networks, you name it, we're doing it. Because when you have somebody who's behind bars or somebody who you would be amazed that they're being either criminalized for something that's not criminal whatsoever, or they're First Amendment rights are being taken away and they cannot speak up. You know, it gets really expensive when you need to hire legal representation, but it is critically important. So what we do—

You know, I—

Go ahead, Jonathan.

No, I would say I agree with him. Freedom of speech should never, ever, ever be— that is a right that is in the Constitution. I think freedom of speech leads to— is the cornerstone of all of the, uh, all of our rights, especially in that First Amendment, uh, freedom to assemble, uh, protest, and all that other stuff that comes along with freedom of the press, uh, all that. But so with that being said, how do you feel about, uh, what happened to Jimmy Kimmel?

See, I don't like the fact— I mean, I, I, I think what Jimmy Kimmel said was despicable, but I don't think he should have been taken off his platform. And that's really what we, um, you know, are here to protect. And I mean, I may not be the biggest Jimmy Kimmel fan, um, I know I knew Charlie Kirk personally. I was on the, uh, board of Turning Point USA. Charlie would give me calls asking me for advice from time to time, which was amazing because this guy was, uh, 17 years younger than me and I looked up to him. So You know, I have skin in the game because, you know, I knew Charlie on a personal level. Um, but I don't think that Jimmy Kimmel, um, although what he said was completely, um, inappropriate—

what exactly, what exactly is inappropriate? He just said that, uh, Donald— he played a clip where Donald Trump, uh, started talking about, speaking about, um, something else, the building. And, you know, over there. He didn't say— he didn't speak. In fact, he actually condemned the violence, and he actually sent his condolences and everything to the Kirk family. And all he did was use a video of Trump showing Trump, you know, when a reporter asked about Charlie Kirk, and Charlie Trump acknowledged it briefly and then started speaking about something else. What was despicable about that. He didn't say anything despicable.

He was blaming the MAGA movement for the cause of the assassination. That was one of them.

That's incorrect. That's incorrect. He did not. That's— we can replay the video right here.

Yeah, I'll get it. What did Jimmy Kimmel— I'll write right now. What did Jimmy Kimmel say? Is that— rather than argue, we could get this information really quickly. Can Kim will say about Charlie Kirk.

Yeah, we're not arguing, we're having a discussion.

No, I understand that, but I want to get— facts are important because when people say that didn't happen, um, the listening audience is not going to really understand what, what happened. Um, you said it was on how Trump's allies allegedly exploited the tragedy for political, political gain. He later defended them as intentionally and maliciously mischaracterized by critics. You also said—

one second, we're talking about every— you're talking about— no, I'm talking about an incident that led up to that, because he said plenty about it afterwards. He said plenty about the right after that, okay, after they led the attack on him. But what did he say, uh, in that moment that caused the outrage? Let's— let's— facts matter, right? And context matters as well.

Exactly. I agree with both of those things.

And one second, guys, uh, Adrian said that we're allowed to ask questions If anyone else wants to jump and ask questions, please.

I do. I found it interesting. I was reading an article this afternoon. It talked about a guy from Turning Point saying that every new attack aimed at Pete Hegseth makes me want another narco drug boat blown up and sent to the bottom of the ocean. So go ahead.

All right, so let me stop because I, I think that that type of, uh, statements is, is completely deplorable, and it's just, um, something that I don't, I don't understand.

So then here's it.

But you brought me— just get back. Let me get back to—

wait, wait, wait, let me finish it. Can I, can I finish my, just my, my, my statement It says that Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Calvet posted that Thursday on X. So, so when, when is free speech okay and when is it not? And it's coming when we talk about the rhetoric that, that was said about Kimmel. It was nowhere near what this guy just said from Turning Point. From an official from Turning Point said that and has been quoted. In an article about defending Pete Hicks, said the Secretary of Defense actually turning a turtle with a rocket launcher thing on his, on his personal stuff to say, hey, look, we can blow these people up, whoever we want. That's crazy to me.

All right, so let me, let me answer.

Let me address this. First of all, what I was saying about Jimmy Kimmel I was correct. It said he implied the shooter, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, he said that he had far, he had emerging far-right ties in the initial reports. And that's what was despicable, that he was trying to blame the shooting on the MAGA movement and on conservatives. And that's what was, got people infuriated. And the fact that here was a guy Charlie Kirk that got assassinated for what? For freedom of speech. He was an evangelical Christian. People said that he was sexist. He wasn't sexist. He just followed his faith and he preached everything in his faith. And I'll get to your question in a second. I just want to address this first because it's really important because it's really what the core of what we're about is. Is they said that he was racist because they said he said something about Martin Luther King. And if you look and peel the layers off over, he, uh, he called Martin Luther King out because he said that there were a lot of women in Martin Luther King's presence that were being exploited, uh, sexually. And, uh, you know, for, you know, and he was not even a faithful man to, uh, his spouse. So that was misconstrued completely to say that he was racist. I mean, I knew the guy. There was not a racist bone, racial bone in his body. But getting back to, uh, the spokesperson for Turning Point USA, we— I don't know who this person is. So if somebody— Turning Point has, in every university, they have, uh, a chapter, and there's probably about 200+ students in each of those chapters. So if you take that as a whole and multiply that out, you have probably over 100,000 people that can be labeled as a Turning Point representative. You can't control that many viewpoints, and there are going to be people who say things that are not in, you know, complete contrast with what Charlie stood for. And what Turning Point stood for and stands for. So I, I don't think that statement is anything in line with the values of Turning Point USA and the people that I know that are, know very closely with the organization itself and why it was founded. So I don't want to, to, to spew out misinformation based upon something that this is the first time I heard it I do not know if it is accurate. I do not know who this person is. But I do know that when you have over 100,000 people that could be labeled as an agent of Turning Point because they are— all they have to do is have a membership into one of their school chapters. I mean, it is— you could find that in every single organization. And I do not think that is the direction we should go because we will never, ever actually have an understanding because will be spewing misinformation out there because we have bias agendas. We, we focus in on aligning our bias, all of us, including me. Um, and that's why freedom of speech is so important, is let me understand the other side's viewpoint because let me find out why I am wrong. And quite honestly, I am wrong often, but I'm willing to—

Yeah, because you're a little bit wrong about Charlie Kirk because he had a lot of bigoted and racist statement outside of what you just said? Because he said that exactly— that's not the only thing he said about Martin Luther King. He said he shouldn't have a holiday. He said a lot of things. Do you agree or disagree that he made a lot of bigoted and racist statements?

I have not heard a single bigoted or racist thing that he said. I read the context of what he said about Martin Luther King because I wanted to know. I think that he just followed the— I know the core of me knows that he followed the evangelical Christian Bible to its core, and he did not have a racist bone in his body. And you know, it's funny because I don't know if you know— yeah, I don't know if you know who— I want to get—

wait, wait, wait, you guys, we are live. On, uh, we are live not only just on Chatter Social but the 10 platforms. Attorney Turk is my guest on Adrienne Barker Speaks. I had no idea who he is because I don't prep, so there's no fluff. So, uh, so one at a time, and, uh, and then, and, and, you know, we're not gonna argue.

So, am I allowed to finish? Because there was a conversation that he was finishing up and I just—

Sure, can he, can he finish? Can he finish explaining about why Charlie Kirk ain't racist? You don't have a racist bone in his body.

I mean, I, I've known him personally. One of the things that, um, I think around 2011 or 2012, I went to, um, Dallas. They had an event for Turning Point. This is right when I got started into Turning Point USA, and I got to be backstage with Charlie, and it was a women's event, and he was looking out at the audience, and there was probably, I'm guessing, maybe let's say 15,000 people in the audience. It was a big convention, and the convention hall that was hosting it, right by the airport. And I said to Charlie, I said, you know, the one thing you really have to focus in on is look at this audience, what, what, what do you notice here? And I said, joking but with truth, is that if we had to have crayons to color this, we would only need the lightest shades of the rainbow. And we need diversity. If you are a conservative organization, you really need to capture everyone. And he— we had a nice conversation about what he's doing and what he's trying to accomplish and how he feels. We just had a personal conversation, right? So I got a good understanding of his heart right then and there. And then the next couple of weeks, um, there was another event in West Palm Beach, and there was a dinner, and I got invited. And sitting next to me was Candace Owens, and That's when he hired Candace Owens, who I'm not a big Candace Owens fan. I think what she's saying about Judaism and Israel is completely inappropriate and unconscionable. But at the time, it was, you know, him listening and realizing that we do need— he does— Turning Point needs diversity. And They have, you know, organizations within the organization for diversity, and they have, you know, not only do they have women's events, they have events for minorities. They have a Black annual convention. I mean, they do a lot to capture diversity, but I think people take him out of context. And I cannot imagine somebody who I knew quite personally— I just didn't see an ounce of racism in his body. And people take what he said for being evangelical more so out of context to support a position. And one of the things that's really challenging for me is to have open dialogue where every time you have a disagreement, the other side is going to call you racist. And it just really devalues the conversation because you could have ideas that may not be supportive of one group or another, but that does not necessarily make you racist. I mean, you could call out some truths in certain, um, situations, which he did for all types of, uh, faith and race and everything else.

Um, even the pilots too, right?

With what? Even the pilots, the Black pilots, the Black pilots that he talked about, the United Airlines. Are you— I don't know what he's said, but I assume you're talking about when United Airlines decided to use DEI in their hiring policy and focus in on getting not the best pilots, but the best pilots who happen to be either women or Black. I think that's probably what you're referring to.

It wasn't Black. It wasn't just Black because— no, it was just Black. It was all— it was Asians, it was every Hispanic, it was everyone. So you can't say Black. Wasn't just Black. That, that's a fallacy. That's, that's a misconception that was out there.

It was— I just said, I just— I'm, I'm talking more about— I assume it was more about DEI than anything because he wasn't a professional.

They still had to take— they still had to pass the same test, right? They didn't lower test requirements. They just went out and recruited different people, but you still had to have the same requirements. So it didn't make you less safe.

No, that's not true. That's not true. What they said was that they're going to hire X amount of people. So what that meant was they're not going to get the best people. They were going to get the best people that— but based on racism and based on— yeah, that's— look it up. That's exactly what they said. United Airlines, we need to hire 80% of people that aren't white males. I mean, that's Hey, Attorney Kirk, this is, this is OG James.

So when we deal with aviation, you're still talking about ATP certification through the FAA. So when you're looking at that, but I, I wanted to slide back because I think I, if you, I, I think you're familiar with the fact that Wheaton College is an evangelical university. I'm an alum of Wheaton College, but I'm also a Black man that grew up on the West Side of Chicago. Now when you spoke about being evangelicals, you're familiar with the Book of Matthew, chapter 7, verses 1 through 7, where it starts talking about judge not lest you be judged. And when you sat there and you talked about, even if we're not dealing with race, when you talked about how he judged Martin Luther King according to certain actions that he did, are we not expressly kind of told not to do that? That's not part of love to judge folks like that. Let them know you by your love, not by judgment. If you're an evangelical, should you be judging? Was Charlie Kirk, or are you correct in judging people the way that you looked at him and the way that he talked about Martin Luther King? Is that an inappropriate thing to do for an evangelical Christian?

I am not an evangelical. I do not know that to be true. And what I am saying about what he said about Martin Luther King, I'm referencing it from my memory. But I can go back and look at exactly what he said. So like, again, you're taking what I said might be 80% accurate because it's coming from my recollection, not from exactly what came out of his mouth. But if you took what came out of his mouth and said exactly what came— and I could look it up if you want, and maybe we could have a discussion about that, but I'm just paraphrasing what—

so, so here's what came out of your mouth. What, what came out of your mouth was that you questioned the qualifications of people that have to pass an FAA stringent certification with more than 20— they probably have more than 2,500 flight hours before they get behind, uh, a, a major airline like United or American, right? Are you familiar with that? And, and if you're not, then why are you talking about it? You made that comment. And even— I'm not talking about the exactism. I asked you not to judge. I said, if he— let's change it the way I said it. If he said it, if he said it—

OG, OG, one second. Let's remember he's a guest here. Look at—

no, no, look, one of the things that I appreciate in this conversation is heated conversations of people who disagree with me or question me because at the end of the day, I'm going to have to know my facts better. And so that I could support arguments with people who have the opposing side. It's easy when you have conversations with people who just are yes people because you're their friends and they agree with you and they say you're right, you're right, you're right, but they don't challenge your thinking. But it's much more beneficial to have somebody who completely challenges everything I say because Words do matter. So I do not want to mislead or misconstrue an audience based upon a recollection of what was done, what Charlie said, or about the FAA. My whole point, from my recollection, is that I don't honestly care what the color or the race or the religion or the gender of the pilot. I don't think that has anything to do with putting the best pilot, hiring the most qualified pilot. But that should not— race should not be a deciding factor in that. You should look at who is the most qualified. Now, all things being equal, yes, we could look at other you know, other factors. I do believe that one of the reasons this country is better than any other country, and I really do believe that, is that we have diversity of opinions and we have diversity of thoughts and we have the freedom to share that. And when we go to war, when 9/11 occurred, that was the closest we were as a country. Nobody cared who their neighbor was, what church they belonged to, or, you know, gender, race. We're all Americans. And, you know, we forget that because in this country, for some reason, a lot of the media, especially the sensationalized media, they just factor in splitting us up and putting us in groups and categories and this and that. And we can't get along because everybody has a different perspective and we have to exploit those perspectives and everyone has to, to come from a sense that of wrong, being wronged. I'm Jewish, so I don't truly understand the evangelical philosophy. I just understand the people behind it and, you know, their core heart and their message. I don't care if they're— what their religion is, as long as you're a good person, you know, and open-minded in a sense to make me feel that, you know, you may not agree with me or my faith, but you'll respect me just like I will respect you. And I don't think you really need to know and quote the Bible to know in the core of all of us is a soul, and that soul of, you know, of righteousness is based upon being good to other people, being concerned and not judgmental. And realize that as you get older, 90% of what you really thought you knew you realize you don't know. I mean, the older I get, the more I realize the less I know. And, um, it's— that's why I love these conversations, because, you know, put me to the fire. Tell me what I'm saying is wrong, because if I just yes to death, then I really have no purpose because I'm not gonna evolve as a human being. I mean, as a society, we all changed over the last 20 years alone. I mean, one of the things I keep saying, 20 years ago, it was, I think it was the Defense of Marriage Act, it was Bill Clinton, right? That marriage was between a male and a female. And, you know, that was the consensus on both left and right. We have evolved tremendously from that. So, you know, without free speech and, you know, the ability to share what we think, we really don't have a country. So, you know, I may think about aviation one way because from what I want is maybe a little different than what you want. But that doesn't mean you're right and I'm wrong or vice versa. It means that we should have a debate about it, a discussion about it. And what Charlie Kirk did best was he would have these debates and he would go into the lion's den and say, tell me why I'm wrong. Now, whether or not he ever changed his ways, I don't recall. But I can tell you for me, things that I thought I knew in the '20s that I was so, you know, for, I have a different viewpoint in my late 40s now.

So.

But if we take away our ability to share and convey that message to one another, we really don't have the ability to grow and expand as a nation or as an individual. And it's funny, as I keep saying, I'm in my late 40s. I have kids that are 12 and 13, and sometimes as much as I think I know more I know best, they prove me I'm wrong. I mean, it doesn't matter how old you are, just matters how you're willing to take on an argument, look at it from all different avenues, and not be so close-minded to think that there's only one way to answer that issue and that you're always going to be right.

Attorney Turk, I have a question. I'm going to put my hand up. First of all, thank you so much and thank you for your time. Please let me know how much time you have available. Do you have another 10 minutes?

Yeah, I have 10 minutes. I have a 4:30 call to go on. It's 4:05 my time.

Okay, very, very good. Oh, I'm on the East Coast in Daytona Beach. So, Attorney Turk, what about the J6ers? Are you representing any of them in the cases that were taking place?

Yeah, we had, uh, we got a pardon by, uh, a pardon from one of these J6ers. His name is Dan Wilson. We, we helped him. So Dan Wilson got released after, uh, Trump initiated the full pardon. And, um, you know, one of the things that we have to take a step back in, and, and I don't think that people realize how, um, how sick and deranged this could be. So whether or not you're on one side or the other side of J6, I could tell you a lot, but we don't have enough time, um, so that you at least understand my perspective on this. Okay, um, but with that being said, you have people who, um, they knew where they're gonna They were already talking to the DOJ and to their lawyers, and they knew that they were going to have to surrender at some point. We had somebody who we worked very closely with. His name was Travis Evans. He was a part of the charity. Now he's an advisor to the charity, and he walked through the Capitol building with a megaphone and a bottle of Fire whiskey or Fireball, and he was talking to the authorities. He had an attorney, and rather than him getting arrested like a, you know, a person who was not a risk, threat of risk of leaving the country, with father of two, husband, a family-oriented individual, very passionate about his country, our country. And he ended up having scores of police raiding his house with guns, with lasers focused on his children, treated him like he was an animal rather than have him just self-surrender, which he would have been willing to do, and they could have easily. It's not a good use of resources. But this is not the America that we, we cherish. This is, this is an authoritarian regime. So one of the things that we realize is that this was a politicized situation. Any which way you want to look at it, you may be against it, but it was politicized and it was not an insurrection by the textbook definition. So yeah, we do represent a lot of people. One of them is this guy Dan Wilson. So after he got pardoned, when they did one of those raids on his house, they found a gun in his house that was unauthorized. Don't support that, don't promote it, but it was based upon this raid, which should not have happened in the first place. And the judge refused to let him out until we had an unconditional pardon, the second pardon for the same situation. A lot of people who— I'm not condoning walking through the Capitol building on January 6th, but went there without a malicious intent, without a thought that they were overthrowing the government. A lot that people, that the public doesn't— is unaware of. But a lot of the people, the majority of the people who walk through there were thinking that they were just protesting, just peacefully protesting. And all of a sudden, their livelihood has been taken away from them. They can't seek employment. Everything that they've known is taken away. They can't even open a bank account at certain banks. They were ostracized in their communities. They can't seek normal wages anymore. And just a lot of things that just don't add up. You have someone by the name of Ashley Babbitt who got shot from what looks like it was a police officer. But, you know, we know that, but I mean, there's a lot of information that's just a little questionable. So I don't want to misquote, misstate, but why did she lose her life for protesting? She didn't have a weapon, she didn't have anything, but where's the outrage there? There is none. You know, a lot of things happened that day. And a lot of things that we don't have answers to. And so what we're trying to do is to understand this so it doesn't happen again. So people, they have due process. There were people there that were there behind bars for months before they were even charged for a crime. There was somebody who wasn't even in the Capitol building that we're helping out. That he was with a reporter from, trying to think of it, it was Rolling Stone magazine, I believe. And they got him for trespassing 'cause he crossed a barrier unaware. They put him in solitary confinement for 17 days. I mean, that's not America. That's not freedom. I mean, and these are the people that we're trying to protect and to get them back to society. And unfortunately, this is a side that people don't know because people's political aggression— and I say that correctly, political aggression— they believe what they want to believe, and they have so much animosity towards the other side that they're not willing to even understand that the other side has a perspective, and that person might be a friend under a different situation.

I mean, do you feel like all the Jan 6 people was treated unfairly?

I think the majority of them, but there are bad seeds. I think there were bad people. I think like in any, any protest or any type of, um, situation like that, um, there are people there that I don't condone at all. But, um, two wrongs don't make a right either.

You think if Ashley Babbitt would have complied that she would still be living today?

Have you— I, I don't think she really was not compliant. I've seen the video. It just looked like she was just shot randomly. Like, it made no sense. No threat.

It must be two videos. It must be two videos out there because she was warned several times and she kept going. And when she stuck her head through that thing where all the senators and congressmen were, that's when she was shot. But she was warned several times to stop and she wouldn't stop.

There are other videos that I don't know why they haven't been publicized, but if you've seen them, you would understand my, my, my perspective. But I, I really appreciate talking to you because you, you, you, you challenge everything I say, and rightfully so. So thank you. Um, but I don't think she should have— she wasn't a threat, uh, imminent harm to anybody, which would warrant justify losing your life. Well, was she making a wise decision at that moment? I wouldn't say that she was, but I don't think, you know, you should have lost your life. Neither should have George Floyd lost his life. But at the same time, you know, you don't want to take away the death of somebody by justifying the the overreach, uh, or the stupidity of the law enforcement officer for taking that life. And I don't think it— neither of those lives should have been lost under those situations.

I think it was lucky that more people didn't get killed that day besides the police officer that was— that, that died and the ones that were brutalized. But it's amazing. There were more.

There were more. There were, I think, 5 or 6. There are 5 or 6 people that I think— I'm sorry, I don't want to misquote. It might be 3 or 4 people, but there are, there are other people that lost their lives there that nobody discusses, and, uh, it's wrong. But it's the same time, protesters—

are you talking about, are you talking about protesters?

I'm talking about protesters and law enforcement as well, and, uh, the people who got characterized as, uh, losing their life as law enforcement. One person, 2 days later, had a heart attack, but they put him in the, um, the list of people who lost their life to create the narrative that they wanted. And I, I, I'm not trying to support, um, one political ideology over the next. I just think that we have been so split as a nation right now that, um, it's, it's hard to support something that doesn't support our political viewpoints. So everybody who's watching or watched January 6th, if you find out that they're on the right, they're going to say this was complete nonsense. And if they're on the left, they think the opposite. But I'm just trying to get back to decency and civility and, you know, unity. I mean, I think this country We were never so close as a nation as we were after 9/11. And then we were just as close probably when Obama got into office. And we are nowhere as close as, you know, that those times. And I think it's a shame. It really is.

So, Attorney Turk, thank you so much for being here. Thank you for— for what I'd like to do is ask you to share how we can help you. I absolutely believe in our freedom to speak. I appreciate everyone on ChatterSocial and Jonathan Bing especially for allowing us to host this live in the room. Again, it was unexpected, and I know that you need a few more minutes before you go to your next meeting, but we'd love to have you on ChatterSocial, and it is a free app. And maybe you can use this sometimes when you're looking to figure out like what the jurors are going to think or what someone to debate. You'll have plenty of both sides. No, anytime. How can we help you?

Well, first of all, um, my charity is the American Rights Alliance. You look up americanrightsalliance.org. We are 501(c)(3). We're not— I keep saying this— we're not politically driven to just go and address one side or the other. We want a country that is united and has the ability to speak freely, not be told what speak and to, you know, be controlled to share just one opinion. Um, I love the audience, I love the conversation today. I wasn't expecting this at all. Um, just like you going on this, um, you know, my, my, my, um, my staff puts me in front of these audiences and sometimes I like to go in them cold and sometimes I'm playing softball, but today I feel like I was in a boxing ring, and I enjoyed it. So I appreciate, uh, the diversity of opinion, and I appreciate the civility of it as well, and, uh, the, the knowledge base of those who went and spoke from the other side. So I thank the audience for, um, putting me up to a challenge that I wasn't expecting. So, uh, I appreciate everyone's time. Unfortunately, I have to, uh, get to another, um, meeting in 13 minutes, but Thank you again.

Thank you so much.

It was great speaking with you too.

Thank you too.

It was great speaking to you, uh, uh, uh, Attorney Turgeon. I think you should come back on. Maybe we have very spirited debates. I think you'll like it. You'll learn, and we can learn from you. But we definitely need more, um, people from with different perspectives. So I think you should download the app and come on, come in to debate the news and, and wrestle with us sometime, man.

That'd be great. I think I have to. It's only going to make me a stronger person. And if I practice what I preach, this is really where I need to go. I need to be challenged, you know, not just by yes sir, yes sir, yes sir, but people who say no sir, you're wrong, and let me show you why you're wrong. So I appreciate all of you and look forward to doing this again.

You got to pull up—

go ahead.

No, my bad. Go ahead.

I must say, they make, they make their own law up in here, so we need somebody to know the real stuff.

No, no, no, Jonathan, you got the last word.

No, no, I enjoyed them being here, that's all. And, uh, definitely, uh, different perspective. We have Cindy Stumpo here as well. Uh, she was here and, um, I don't know if she's still here, but, uh, yeah. Oh, Cindy is here.

I'm sorry I missed it.

I would have been on the right side of this conversation, as you know.

I actually reached out to Grant Cardone. I think he's gonna try— he was gonna try to get in here as well. I reached out to Grant to get him to come in here and listen to this as well. Uh, but, uh, 100%, uh, I thought Grant would have provided a lot more spark to this as well. But I got Cindy in here. Cindy, I reached out to Cindy. Cindy is, uh, the top, uh, one of the top luxury builders in the country and the top female luxury builder in the country. So Cindy and me, Attorney.

Yeah, that's my attorney. That's my claim to fame. That's it. It's going on my headstone. Yeah, listen, I, I hear you. I hear you went some rounds in here. Good luck to you. We all do it every single night.

How's that?

Would you like to be us?

Yeah, seriously, like, I feel like I— like I was saying, I was playing softball, now I'm in a boxing ring, but I liked So I'll have to do it again.

That's not true.

You're gonna, you're gonna hang up and you're gonna roll your eyes and go, what a bunch of schmeggies, and move on. It's okay.

It's my favorite word. I had a fish named Schmeggie once.

So yeah, yeah, well, that's my favorite word when I'm in the—

it fits right in.

So thank you.

Thank you all.

I appreciate it.

I know you need to go. Thank you very much. You were really wonderful. I really appreciate it. Thank you all on Chatter Social, and I'm going to end the stream right now. And give me 5 stars no matter what. Just kidding. Attorney Turk, woo! I sweated a lot during this. Thank you so much.

I really appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate