Did someone forward you this? Subscribe here free!
Good morning, Roca Nation. Welcome to all the new readers who’ve joined us in the past week. A quick note about We The 66: We send out this newsletter daily at 7 AM Eastern Time. Occasionally it’s free; usually it’s paid. We also send out four “need-to-know” stories here each morning. Roca Members (become one here!) get all for $5.99 a month; free readers get some.
Today’s four need-to-knows are: US and China agreed on a TikTok deal (free); next steps for Turning Point USA (free); tensions rise in the UK amidst ongoing demonstrations; and Germany’s AfD is advancing in the country’s west.
By Max Frost
In the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination, posts like the following have been going viral: “While people were focused on Charlie Kirk, Congress did X.”
The posts – implying that Congress used the attention on Charlie Kirk to pass controversial legislation – focused on three alleged actions in particular:
The Senate blocked the release of the “Epstein files”
Anti-Israel boycott legislation passed
A House bill was introduced that would allow Secretary of State Marco Rubio to strip citizenship from those accused of opposing Israel
Today, we examine the truth of these three headlines.
A quick note: The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is an annual bill that must be passed by Congress to authorize defense spending. The NDAA must be passed before the fiscal year ends on September 30. Each year, both sides’ politicians try to use the must-pass bill’s deadline to insert preferred policies.
“The Senate blocked the release of the ‘Epstein files’ while people were watching Charlie Kirk.”
On the morning of September 10, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) proposed an amendment to the NDAA that would force Attorney General Pam Bondi to release all files and documents related to Jeffrey Epstein.
"The American people need to see everything that's in the Epstein files. And my amendment would make that happen," Schumer said.
He moved on Wednesday morning to force a vote on the proposal that night – meaning he proposed the change and vote before Kirk was shot. All but two Republicans opposed the proposal, calling it an attempt to score political points while the sides were engaged in bipartisan talks to pass the NDAA.
“This is not the right way to do it,” Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) said of Schumer’s move.
That night, hours after Kirk was shot, the Senate voted 51-49 to reject the amendment.
“The House advanced a bill that will let Marco Rubio strip citizenship from anti-Israel protesters.”
Versions of this were widely shared, including by prominent investigative/anti-Israel journalist Max Blumenthal. Blumenthal tweeted on September 14:
Rep. Brian Mast, who showed up to work in an IDF uniform after Oct 7, introduced a bill allowing Marco Rubio to strip Americans of citizenship if they're accused of "material support" for Israel's enemies
No due process, it's all up to Rubio
Is this true?
This full report is for paid subscribers, who fund our journalism. If you start a two-week free trial today, you’ll be automatically entered to win a free year. Once you sign up, you can access all of our articles here!
Editor’s Note
Replies keep pouring in from readers about our Charlie Kirk coverage. Much of it relates to whether or not we have an obligation to say his positions are correct or not. As one reader (very respectfully!) wrote:
When you are in the public ear and have amassed influence and a following, you have a responsibility to speak in a manner that isn't overly reliant on people "putting it in context" because frankly that's not reality. Put bluntly, if this many of your comments can be interpreted as bigoted, hateful, and damaging to groups of people, and you just continue to speak that way knowing full well that you are whipping up followers who are hearing what they choose to hear, then you've failed to lead responsibly.
This follows the reply below from Josh, which we ran yesterday:
Frankly the lack of actual journalism or commentary here is startling. This article alone implies that everything Charlie Kirk said in those quotes was accurate and factual, with no delineation between opinion or interpretation. I appreciate that in the past you have attempted to be unbiased. However, writing this article in this way shows significant clashes with your mission statement.
Just a reminder that while reading comprehension allows people to distinguish fact from opinion in articles such as these, you have a duty to write in a way that a layman can easily interpret.
Do better.
Ryan from Philadelphia responded to Josh:
You should address how the person telling you to “do better” and how publishing the full context of someone’s views they disagree with is “in conflict with your mission” is actually showing how brainwashed they are by them reading that and reacting that way. They’re actually offended by anything that ISN’T propaganda. Crazy to think we’ve gotten there with some people.
Enjoy your guys stuff and seeing the growth. Keep up the good work.
And David wrote “in response to Josh”:
First off, thanks for your newsletter. It’s incredibly refreshing to see (mostly) unbiased reporting of current news.
Josh implies (in my reading) that you have a responsibility to report the news in a way that layman can understand. It feels like that would be much akin to what the current news outlets do. Bias with their own beliefs by telling you how you should read it.
I very much disagree and want you to keep doing it the way you have been. You should report on the facts. You should report on both sides of the facts when both sides have valid arguments.
I'm not a Charlie Kirk fan. To be honest, I never had heard of him before his assassination.
His beliefs are the antithesis of what I hold in my heart to be "right.” But I will defend his right to say things, and I think silencing someone by killing them is one of the most abhorrent things you can do.
I'm angry this has been politicized as much as it has been, and how many people and politicians are trying to divide us further with their rhetoric. Unfortunately that is the world we are living in.
Thanks for being you Max and Max.
One other interesting perspective came from Mohamad, who shared this:
Hey Roca! huge fan. Not sure if you’ve seen How the muslims reacted to Charlie’s death, so check out Sh. Dr. Hatem El Hajj’s statements. He’s one of the top muslim scholars in the USA.
Thank you all for reading and for your thoughts. We love Roca Nation!
And if you haven’t read our latest stories yet, find them here:
See you tomorrow,
Max and Max
