All language subtitles for Tuan 324f6sdf

When Brian Harpool
sued me, his

lawyer wrote this amazing
story,

which was just made entirely
no sense,

where he said that
the reason--

Basically, they were trying
to make the argument

that he's not a public figure,
which is very important.

You have to establish
in defamation,

are you a public figure or
are you a private person?

And obviously, he made himself
a public figure

by going on this podcast and
interjecting himself

into this Charlie narrative.

So they were trying to argue that
he's not a public figure,

and he basically said he was

forced to become a
public figure

because of me.

Like, I'm the reason he
went on the--

He had to go on the Sean Ryan
show to clear his name.

And I never covered him
on my show once.

Never spoke his name on my show
before he went on your--

Hm. Never said one word
about him.

Or the security apparatus,
because I knew them.

And my mind just wasn't
there at all

until he did your interview,

and it was so disastrous
in my view.

And I think also the view of all
the people who watched it,

according to the comments,

there was just something
off about it.

And I went, "Whoa, he's answering
questions weird."

And I was like, "I'm gonna
give this up."

But he's saying it doesn't
really make sense,

but that's the argument they're
trying to make,

because they're trying to get
the court to see him

as a private figure who only
had to come out

and do the Sean Ryan show.

One of the biggest podcasts
in the world.

Defend himself against me.

And I'm like, "Well, that's gonna
be a tricky argument,

considering I never spoke about
you ever on my show."

Defamation, which is difficult
for me to comprehend,

because it's so in the
category of opinion.

Like, the first three pages
of a lawsuit,

he's just kind of calling
me an anti-Semite,

and I don't know what
that has

to do with the lawsuit
at all.

He's not Jewish, last
I checked.

Neither was Charlie Kirk.

But he then moves on by saying
that I defamed him

because I said that the security
team was incompetent.

And so he's blaming me for a

loss of revenue to
his business

because I said he's
incompetent.

Now, I would generally say,
"If you have a business,

and your job is to provide
security,

and your client dies
on the job,

that might be the reason you're
not getting many clients."

I'm not saying I'm a genius,

but I don't think people
will be lining up

to hire the same security
people

that guarded Charlie Kirk
on September 10th.

But he thinks it's actually
because of me

calling him, among many
other things,

calling him incompetent,
asking questions about

why they didn't have people
on the rooftop that day

saying that, like, the
support they supplied

to Charlie's neck was
inadequate.

I mean, just things that you
can see with your own eyes

as they're handing him
to the car.

How's they're, like, holding
him to the car?

Him saying on your show that
they didn't provide CPR

because he had to stop
the bleeding.

I have questions about that.

If your heart stops,
what's it

matter if you stop
the bleeding?

So I'm going to stand by my

assessment that he was
incompetent.

And then the second chunk of
his lawsuit is his...

saying that, I guess,
deformation per se

might be his argument,

because I asked about whether
he was at Fort Huachuca,

because somebody believes they
saw him at Fort Huachuca

on the 9th, but he admits
in a lawsuit

that I texted him four times,

asking him just to say
yes or no,

so I could just, you know,
very quickly say,

"Oh, I've reached out to him.
He said it wasn't him."

But his reason for why he
didn't answer me,

despite me trying to just
get an answer,

and why he decided to just
instead sue me,

was because...

What was his bizarre
legal reason

for why he just didn't answer
any of my questions?

I think he said, because,
"Oh, he didn't want me

to get famous off of him."

I promise you this is
his argument.

I think they filed it in such
a sloppy manner

that they're hoping the
court drops it.

And then they can say,
"Well, we

tried. We were telling
the truth."

And there is a lot of that
in the court system

where people file for
PR reasons.

I mean, Brigitte is a perfect
example of that.

Where you're doing something
that you kind of know

you can't win in court, but
it allows you to then say,

"Well, we really tried,
and obviously,

we must have been telling the

truth, or we wouldn't
have sued."

And that's not the case.

I have not changed my mind
about Brian Harpole,

and I was very thorough in
trying to just get him--

to give me a response.

Like, I would have happily taken
a response from him,

and he still hasn't
offered one.

My understanding is
he's not so

working for Turning
Point USA,

and I did hear through
the grapevine

that they sent him a cease
and desist

after all of the flack
that he got

for his various appearances,
things that he was saying

that was just making
things worse,

because he doesn't sound
honest when he speaks.

He's not clear, and he's
also dishonest.

I mean, he said, "Even when I
was watching your show,

and that was one of the
reasons we covered it,

was because we instantly
learned--

He presented those messages

when you asked him about
the rooftop.

He shows these messages,

and then he says, "What am I
supposed to do with that?"

You know, the implication being
that this is a conversation

he was having, but it wasn't.

He was showing you Dan Flood's
text messages.

So that was strange and
dishonest, and yeah.

And they were also--

The discussion wasn't even
about Losy Center.

The discussion was about the
walkway above Charlie.

So it seemed like even when
he was on the show,

he was focused on PR, but he just
wasn't very convincing.

And that's literally
in the lawsuit

that I described him as not
very convincing,

and that's defamatory.