reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @ProjectConstitu

Posted - April 26, 2026 at 6:51 AM

Saved - April 26, 2026 at 8:23 PM

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 WHCD SHOOTER: Cole Thomas Allen Connected To Our Favorite Ally—Seen wearing IDF Sweatshirt And Searched In Israel A Week Prior To The Event. The mainstream media is already working overtime to paint Cole Thomas Allen—the WHCD shooter—as just another "LONE WOLF" deranged liberal from Torrance. But when you look at the digital trail they tried to scrub, the "Lone Wolf" story falls apart. 1. THE ISRAEL FOREKNOWLEDGE: How do you explain this? Google Trends shows a massive spike in searches for "Cole Thomas Allen" originating from Israel on April 23rd—TWO DAYS before he stepped foot in the DC Hilton. Why was he being monitored or searched for in Israel before he even pulled the trigger? [Image 2] 2. THE IDF CONNECTION: A deleted Instagram photo has surfaced showing Allen posing in an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) sweatshirt. [Image 1] He is a Caltech grad and a mechanical engineer—someone who understands optics. This wasn't a random thrift store find; it’s a signal of alignment that the media is completely ignoring. 3. THE NASA/JPL "PATTERNS": Allen isn't just a "test prep tutor." He’s a high-level engineer with past ties to NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), working on AI models. We’ve seen this profile before—the "brilliant loner" with federal agency internships who suddenly "snaps" and bypasses elite Secret Service checkpoints with a shotgun and knives. 4. THE "STAGED" RED FLAGS: The Entrance: How does a "part-time teacher" stay as a guest at the high-security Washington Hilton during the WHCD and rush a checkpoint armed to the teeth without being neutralized immediately? The Optics: He fired 5–8 shots at a Secret Service officer's vest, yet was tackled and arrested without being shot by the most elite security detail on the planet. The Narrative: Within hours, Trump and the Secret Service both labeled him a "sick person" acting alone. Case closed? Not even close. The Bottom Line: You have a Caltech engineer, a NASA-tied AI researcher, wearing IDF gear, who was being searched for in Israel 48 hours before the event. This has all the hallmarks of a coordinated operation or a deep-state "psyop" designed for maximum optics. Then you have Erika Kirk making a fake crying evacuation video. This is all by design folks. They would rather kill innocent people then to be exposed. thes epeople will go to any lengths to cover up their crimes. Don't let them tell you it's a "simple case." The truth is in the data they didn't think we'd find.

@BasedSamParker - Sam Parker 🇺🇸🧯

Is this real? Alleged shooter Cole Allen wearing an IDF sweatshirt? Wtf?! https://t.co/GfXcbXw9e1

@BasedSamParker - Sam Parker 🇺🇸🧯

Literally 1 hour before the alleged gunshots, a huge MAGA slop account & press sec. Karoline Leavitt tell us there will be "shots fired." Then it releases perfectly timed footage of Erika being rushed out with a "Pray for Erika Kirk" sympathy tag. I'm sorry, but was this staged?

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - April 25, 2026 at 4:46 PM

Saved - April 26, 2026 at 8:13 PM

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

‼️BREAKING: Sources CLAIMS Larry "Laura" Loomer Performed ORAL SEX ACTS On Trump's Then Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski 👀 Word on the street is that Laura Loomer—the self-appointed queen of "truth"—reportedly engaged in a disgusting quid pro quo with Corey Lewandowski just to secure a seat on the President’s campaign plane. This is what happens when you let bottom-feeders into the inner circle. Stone is claiming that Laura Loomer's access to the highest levels of power wasn't just about being a loudmouth; it was about being a sexual opportunist. According to Stone's sources, the alleged pattern of behavior is sickening and systemic. He claims that Laura Loomer performed oral sex on Corey Lewandowski, Trump's former campaign manager, "in order to get on Trump's campaign plane." This wasn't just a one-time alleged favor. Sources paint a picture of Loomer using sex as a currency to buy her way into the inner circle, trading favors for access and proximity to power. But it gets worse. Much, much worse. This alleged behavior ties all the way back to the very beginning of Loomer's public notoriety, claiming she wasn't just appearing with Trump—she was appearing with his accomplice and child sex enabler, JEFFREY EPSTEIN. And the most explosive allegation of all? Loomer herself allegedly boasted that she performed the same sexual act on President Trump. Let that sink in. The same woman who Candace Owens exposed as a mentally unstable, fraudulent, alleged sexual predator who is forbidden from owning a firearm, is now being credibly accused of using those same predatory tactics to sleep her way into the White House. This is the "fatal attraction" Melania's circle was allegedly worried about. This is why she was so dangerous. She wasn't just a thug who spread rumors; she was allegedly a blackmailer who collected compromising encounters like trophies. This changes everything. It re-contextualizes her bizarre loyalty and her unhinged attacks as the actions of someone who felt entitled, not just to access, but to the man himself. It explains why Trump kept her around, even as everyone else saw the red flags. The entire Trump orbit is compromised, and the rot starts with people like Laura Loomer, who allegedly climbed the ladder one disgusting, illicit act at a time. I lit the match by dropping her FULL deposition and @RogerJStoneJr Just added the fuel. Share this everywhere before they try to put out the fire. 🇺🇸⚓️

Video Transcript AI Summary

Speaker 0 announces they are about to put something in their mouth, says “it tastes like meat,” notes that it may be disgusting to you, but then states “Actually, it tastes good,” and finishes with “I’m not gonna lie.”

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: I'm gonna put this in my mouth right now. It tastes like meat. Damn. Maybe that is disgusting to you. Actually, it tastes good. I'm not gonna lie.

@RogerJStoneJr - Roger Stone

Sources; Laura Loomer gave Corey Lewandowski head in order to get on Trump's campaign plane when she wasn't appearing with Jeffrey Epstein, accomplise and child sex enabler Steve Bannon https://t.co/JAuS0Q60GV

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - April 17, 2026 at 10:58 AM

Saved - April 19, 2026 at 7:23 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I report that TPUSA’s Athens, GA Q&A was staged: five suited employees with lanyards lined up at the front, preloading the mic and screening topics. A “blue top” woman demanded questions from phones, and a ringer was inserted to push a “safer” topic. They tout non-censorship while curating input, pursuing data harvest and optics, not real dialogue. If the mic is screened, freedom isn’t free.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

EXPOSED: TPUSA Busted Rigging Q&A At Athens, GA Rally—The UGA Student Who Exposed the SCAM Speaks Out!📢 Turning Point USA loves to talk about "Free Speech," but behind the scenes, they’re running a scripted theater production. We just got the boots-on-the-ground report from a UGA student who tried to ask VP J.D. Vance a real question on Tuesday. What she found is the blueprint for how they protect the "Elite" from the "Grassroots." THE SCRIPTED LINE-UP When the Q&A started, the mic was already "pre-loaded." Five people in suits and dresses that were TPUSA employees—all wearing TPUSA lanyards—were positioned at the front of the line before anyone else could even stand up. The Goal: Fill the clock with "safe" questions so the "handlers" can cut the mic before a real patriot gets to speak. THE "TOPIC" POLICE If you aren't wearing a lanyard, you get screened. A "lady in a blue top" circled the line, demanding to know every student's topic. (If anyone KNOWS who that woman is, please let me know.) The Interrogation: They didn't just ask the topic; they demanded to read the questions off the students' phones. The Cut: When the student wouldn't budge, the "handlers" literally inserted a ringer in front of her because her topic was "better" (read: safer). THE ILLUSION OF ACCESS They preach "non-censorship," but they manage their events like a North Korean press junket. They want the optics of a rowdy, free-thinking crowd, but they control the input with an iron fist. THE REAL QUESTION: If TPUSA are so confident in what they preach, why are they terrified of a UGA student asking about government accountability? The Truth: They don’t want a dialogue. They want a Data Harvest,Photo Op and to protect their grift, which just so happens to align with the Trump admin. They want your applause and your email address, but they don't want your questions. If the mic is screened, the speech isn't free. Stop being an extra in their movie.

Video Transcript AI Summary

A University of Georgia student recounts asking JD Vance a question at a Turning Point event. He opened by raising a concern: if there are compromised government officials in the files, how can the public trust that this administration will hold anyone accountable when its own justice department is blocking the investigation? He says he sat in front and intended to ask about a formal investigation, and when Q&A was announced, he rushed to the mic. He describes five people already at the mic wearing TP USA lanyards. He asserts he was the first non-TP USA attendee in line and that, while waiting, a woman in a blue top circulated questions and asked attendees, particularly those not in TP USA, what topic they planned to ask about. He claims it appeared questions were being screened by topic, and he indicated he would ask about foreign policy. After several inquiries about his topic, the process continued. He says the last person before him was allowed to proceed, but the blue-clad woman then placed someone else in front of him because her topic was deemed “better.” He recalls pushing back slightly and, when JD Vance agreed to take one more question, he finally delivered his question. Another moderator briefly interrupted to allow one more question, and the student thanks the vice president as well as JD Vance for allowing free speech at UGA. He notes that, although the organizers advocate for freedom of speech and noncensorship, his experience suggested otherwise, and he describes this as his experience of how the event was managed. He closes by thanking the organizers.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Hi. I am the UGA student that asked this question to JD Vance at the Turning Point event on Tuesday. If there are compromised government officials in those files, how can the public trust that this administration will hold anyone accountable when its own justice department is actively blocking the investigation? I sat at the front of the event and was prepared to ask a question on whether there should be a formal investigation. When I saw they opened it up for q and a, I immediately tried to get to the mic. When the spotlight came on for the q and a, five people were already standing there wearing suits and dresses with TP USA lanyards already positioned there. I still got up and got in line, and I think I was the first one there that was not a part of TP USA. So I just sat in line and got ready to ask my question. When we are waiting in line, this lady in a blue top was going around asking people, especially not in TP USA, what topic we are going to ask about. When I was waiting in line and the lady came up to me I could tell from her tone that they were probably screening the questions by topic so I just said that I was gonna ask on foreign policy. After a few more times of people coming up to me and asking what my topic was this finally happened. Thank you so much. This will be the last question. Speaker 1: Okay. Can we take two more? Because I I I like it. I like to answer questions. We'll take a couple more. Speaker 0: This was the last person in front of me. And when JD Vance said that they were gonna have a few more questions, this lady immediately went back and started asking what my topic was again and specifically what I was gonna ask about. Looking at my phone and saying, can you please read your question to me? I was astonished how they were talking to us, I went off to the side to talk to somebody sitting down. And I looked back and immediately someone had cut me in line. The lady in blue put this girl right in front of me because her topic was better than mine. And here can you you can see me fighting back on that a little bit. Luckily, JD Vance asked for one more question again and finally let me ask a question, so I finally got to get off my chest. Thank you. Speaker 1: Let we'll do one more. Sorry. Real quick. I love this, but I gotta go. Thank Speaker 0: you so much, mister vice president, and coming for to UGA and allowing us to express our freedom of speech. So thank you so much. This is my first time at a TPSA event and a political event, but I just wanted to show that this was my experience, and they might preach for freedom of speech and noncensorship, but this was just my experience and how they manage the event. Thank you.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - January 8, 2026 at 1:42 PM

Saved - April 13, 2026 at 7:53 PM

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 BOMBSHELL: PROOF Lori Frantzve (Erika Kirk's Mom) Is A SPY – Listed in LEAKED INSA Intel Alliance Docs! Apple Doesn't Fall Far From The Tree🧐 Huge tip just in: While digging into Lori Frantzve's background, bombshell evidence emerged tying her DIRECTLY to the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA)—the premier non-profit hub for intel thought leadership, networking ex-spy directors, White House natsec staff, senior military, Congress members, and private sector spooks. She's listed as "Ms. Lorin Frantzve" (alias alert!) on page 307 of a leaked 1131-page INSA members directory from Cryptome/JAR2 archives: Ms. Lorin Frantzve XXXX E. Sharon Dr. Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Phone: (none) Fax: (none) Email: lfrantzve@imetlabs.com (PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE) Why "Lorin" vs "Lori"? Multiple identities confirmed in public records: Lori A Frantzve, Lori W Frantzve, Lori A Srantve, Lori A Walstad, Lori Ann Guinta, Lori Ann Frantzue, Lori A Frantze, Lori W Frantze, Lori Frantzue—up to 11 variations! Her companies? AZ-Tech International Inc. and IMET Laboratories (DBA for AZ-Tech)—both from Scottsdale addresses, listed in federal vendor procurement docs alongside NSA-linked suppliers. IMET Labs tied to risk analysis tech, patents, and gov contracts. Cryptome (online intel leak library) and JAR2 (NSA email lists) host these files, placing Lori in the same ecosystem as proven spies. Leaked federal vendor lists highlight IMET Labs with contact Lori Frantzve. This isn't a coincidence—spies use aliases and shell companies. Erika's mom in deep-state circles? Explains A LOT about TPUSA, how and why she was introduced to Charlie Kirk. This is another interesting data point in the Charlie Kirk probe. The apple doesn't fall far—Erika's web gets shadier. FOLLOW The amazing @Mia_Stretch for PART 2 Docs: Scribd/Cryptome leaks (search "insa-spies.pdf"). Tag @RealCandaceO & RT to expose!

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨SHOCKING: Erika Kirk Is a ROTHSTEIN? The Family Ties That Could BLOW the Charlie Kirk Case WIDE OPEN! 😱🔥 @RealCandaceO – you NEED to see this video breakdown. It all starts making SENSE: Erika Kirk's hidden family lineage allegedly links her to the infamous Rothstein clan – notorious for fraud, crime syndicates, and even fixing the 1919 World Series (Arnold Rothstein, the OG mobster who funded drug/human trafficking networks and inspired Meyer Wolfsheim in The Great Gatsby). But it gets DEEPER: Erika's roommate/cousin? Nicole Rothstein – from a family swimming in shady money (Uncle Alan Rothstein: Involved in massive fraud schemes, defrauding hundreds of thousands, running ghost companies for money laundering, living in a $13M mansion despite "no real job"). Aunt Carla? Married to Jack Solomon (29 years older), a power player tied to Israeli orgs, Freemasonry (32nd degree Scottish Rite), AIPAC, casinos with fraud scandals, and even UVU (where Charlie was shot). Co-founder of Israeli orphanages, restored ancient sites in Jerusalem – screaming elite connections. And the bombshell: Rothsteins directly related to... the ROTHSCHILDS? Currency manipulators, economic crashes, assassinations? "Scroll over and boom – connected." Coincidence? Nah, too many "facts presenting themselves." Erika claimed no dating in NYC for 5 years? Lies – videos show her partying with Nicole. Obscured family tree? Redacted kids on genealogy sites, no pics of grandparents, Swedish name mix-ups. Is this why her mom's side is a black hole? If true, Charlie might've been in a "Truman Show" setup – planted influences, manipulations. From stock fraud to political pulls, this family's history screams "thieves who get away with it." We NEED that missing link! Help build the Rothstein family tree – connect Arnold to modern Rothsteins/Erika. Share tips below or DM me. Massive shoutout to @ScooperofCoop, Be sure to FOLLOW Him! Also i highly highly suggest you watch his full documentary exposing EVERYTHING about @MrsErikaKirk and her family's deep ties to intelligence, child trafficking, the military ,Israel, the Freemasons, al the scandals, corruption, shell companies and more. It's so mind blowing and ties all the pieces together as to why I believe she was sent to be Charlie's handler. This isn't coincidence – it's a DUCK. Quack quack. Wake up, open-source detectives: Charlie's truth hangs on this. Share if you're digging deeper! 👇

Video Transcript AI Summary

In this series, the narrator explores who Erica Kirk is and investigates her family connections, highlighting surprising ties and hidden lineage. The narrative begins by noting that Erika’s Rothstein surname would place her in a lineage linked to the Rothschilds, a connection the speaker claims to find directly visible on social media, suggesting two infamous families are connected “right next to one another.” The speaker argues this could be more than coincidence and intends to trace Erica’s family further. A focus is placed on Erica’s roommate rather than her parents. Erika discloses in an interview that she dated no one during five years in New York, a claim the speaker calls an easily disprovable lie, and the discussion shifts to the roommate who appears in videos. Social media comments from ten years prior reveal a recurring commenter who resembles Erika’s roommate, identified as Nicole Rothstein, who is described as Erica’s cousin rather than just a close associate. Nicole is portrayed as coming from money, with the Rothstein name described as antonymous to honesty. In a 2017 Instagram photo, Erika is shown with two men and a man identified as Alan Rothstein, described by Erika as her uncle. The speaker speculates this uncle is on Erika’s mother’s side, and notes Alan Rothstein’s criminal history, including a case where he defrauded someone of hundreds of thousands of dollars, posed as a consultant but acted as an insider, and used position to siphon company funds. The document cited allegedly involves tens of millions in falsified assets, with legal jargon indicating complex fraud, and Alan is described as someone who has sticky fingers and connections to “friend companies” with little to no business activity. Further family members discussed include Carla Solomon (born Carla Fransvi), Erika’s dad’s sister. Carla married Jack David Solomon, a man described as twenty-nine years older than her, with extensive ties to Israel and numerous high-profile roles. The list of Solomon’s affiliations includes leadership positions in multiple organizations and foundations, though the descriptions emphasize a mix of government, business, and Jewish community involvement. Solomon is portrayed as controversial, including casino ownership and a history of stock fraud and investor fraud, with a noted progression to high-level appointments. His associations include the Federal Land and Development Corporation, Federal Research and Development, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the World Jewish Congress, and numerous other organizations; he is also described as a thirty-second degree Mason and as having restored Zion Gate and Plaza in Jerusalem, highlighting strong Israel connections and power networks. The narrator then links Rothstein to Arnold Rothstein, a famous historical figure suspected of fixing the 1919 World Series by betting on Chicago to lose and using political and police connections to evade charges. Arnold is described as a longtime fixer and financier of crimes, with a legacy of crime syndicates that influenced future illicit networks. The speaker notes a missing link: Arnold Rothstein’s descendants and the exact nature of their children are redacted on genealogy sites, making it difficult to prove direct descent to Erica Kirk. The speaker asks the audience to help locate these missing links to establish whether Erica Kirk is connected to the Rothsteins and to these criminal individuals. Finally, the speaker points out that the Rothsteins are connected to the Rothschilds, describing the two families as linked “two infamous crime families connected or right next to one another.” The closing assertion is that what appears to be a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, implying a probable connection, though the speaker frames this as a conclusion rather than a claim of fact.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: You might not know Erika's exact family lineage, but presuming that they are Rothstein's, it's rather strange then that Rothstein shares family ties to another family, another prominent Jewish family that has been the center of many, many theories for hundreds of years and has been involved in everything from currency manipulation to economic crashes and to assassinations and everything in between, and that family would be the Rothschilds. Indeed, I was rather surprised to see that the two families are related and pretty directly because all I had to do is scroll over to the side and boom, there it was, the Rothsteins and the Rothschilds, two infamous crime families connected right next to one another. Who knows? Maybe this is all just one giant coincidence wrapped in a coincidence taped in a rigmarole, but I really don't believe in those, and I'm not comfortable just saying things are just a coincidence. I think that's a lazy excuse when too many facts aren't presenting themselves. Who is Erica Kirk? So in this series, we're going to seek to find the answer to that question. And trust me, I would not have expected that the most basic question possible was going to take us so many episodes to get to, and I most certainly did not expect that it would leave me wondering if Charlie really was a contemporary Truman Burbank. Tell me what's happening. You're part of this, aren't you? Imagine if you could make one half of your family truly obscure at best or completely indecisurable at worst. Who and what you are related to would be impossible to distinguish, and so remember that for later. We have to try taking one last look at her family, but this time not at her parents, although they might have been involved. Instead, this time we're gonna look at her roommate, which seems unexpected, but let's go. More than once, Erica Kirk has discussed how she dated no one during her five years living in New York until she met Charlie, which is outright an easily disprovable lie, but that's for later. Erica says she really didn't want to date because of the following reasons. Speaker 1: I'm not gonna ask you your personal journey, but what I will say is when I lived out here, I was here for five years. I never dated here because I saw vicariously through my roommate how terrible it was. Somehow getting drinks was the replacement of having coffee and breakfast. I personally would rather have coffee or brunch with someone than go I just I don't drink. I find it unproductive, not because I'm holier than whatever. I that's not I just don't operate that way. But I always thought it was very strange how she would go to drinks with one guy and then go to dinner with another. So it goes twofold here. So if you're expecting to marry someone that I was blessed with, like a Charlie, you have to be the type of woman that will attract a Charlie. Speaker 0: This was one of the only interesting tidbits in horribly staged interview with that broad Weiss, whatever her name is, because it made some of us go, I wonder who that roommate is that was such a bad influence. And lo and behold, after scouring Erica's various social media platforms, videos began emerging like these. And so now we can call into question who Erika Kirk really was in those five years, but once again, don't wanna get ahead of myself. And so we're gonna hone in though on who is appearing in many of these videos. And based on a bunch of comments ranging as far back as ten years ago on Erika's various accounts, we see a common thread that this same female is commenting on Erica's posts, and she just so happens to look like Erica's roommate who appears in these videos. And her name is Nicole Rothstein, and Nicole is actually not just her roommate or soulmate or best friend, whatever she calls her. Nicole is also Erica's cousin, and this is going to become a much bigger deal as we move forward. Nicole, unlike Erica at least, at face value comes from money and interesting money at that. The Rostein name is not exactly synonymous with honesty. If they were in a dictionary, those two are on the opposite ends of one another. In fact, antonyms would probably be a better way to put it. In this photo Erika posted in 2017, she is sitting next to a man whom I wager to be in his 50s and another man who's standing in front of her, who I would wager is putting the pedal to the metal, pushing 70, the late 70s that is. And at the time, and really up until recently, if you had clicked on that photo on Erika Kirk's account on Instagram, you would notice that there's someone tagged, and that someone tagged is named Alan Rothstein, who Erika says is her uncle. And this old dude, I'm presuming here is Gramps, and this uncle that she references, I can only imagine is on the mother's side and is a member of that unknown segment of Erica's family that is seemingly being obfuscated. In any case, though, when reviewing who Alan Rothstein is, I can understand why Erica may have chosen to hide that side of her family, because Allen is not as Hannah Montana says, The boy, the boy, the boy, the honest goods, the real McCoy. My goodness. Uncle Allen has been involved in several criminal operations. For instance, there is a long case file which goes into detail about how Alan defrauded someone of hundreds of thousands of dollars. He was supposed to be a consultant, but was actually just an insider, kind of like a spy, and was just getting info and using his position to spend hundreds of thousands of the company's dollars doing nothing. And Alan, if you're watching this, just want to say, That's not cool, bro. Jerk move. The document then gets deep into legal jargon, but discusses tens of millions of dollars at one point in falsely claimed assets and then goes into the realm where a lawyer might be mildly confused. At his heart, though, Alan seems to possess the sticky fingers that his namesake is so infamous for as we shall see. And lo and behold, someone who likes to pill for the proverbial cookie jar also possesses a number of what are pretty obvious, in my opinion, friend companies. I run into a ton of these in videos. They are companies with little or no website, no customer history, no definable product, and they just sit there for years and sometimes decades doing nothing. But they are convenient for running money through, especially ill gotten money, which seems to be Alan's MO. Not kidding. I was peeping through his companies, and he's got a property management company, a hedge fund, and a bunch of others, and none of them seem to actually do much. That all said, whatever Alan and his family are doing is evidently working quite well for them, I might add, As Alan, though a tool sorry, though, through a tool I use, I learned that Alan lives in a $13,000,000 home. Not bad for a guy who seems to have never really worked a job or built anything himself. And That sort of cash also speaks to who was funding Erika's cousin Nicole and possibly Erika herself while they live the expensive Manhattan life doing nothing of material value. Now, let's shove another step into the family and hit up Carla Solomon, originally Carla Fransvi. This is apparently Erica's dad's sister, so once again, a little info on the mom's side. Carla can be explained in the following words. From the YouTube commenter, Vivian Ballard three nine one five years ago, I'm not implying that she is only interested in the financial stability of men. However, it must be said that she avoids relations with impoverished men. YouTube really is a wonderful place. Thank you for that comment. In other words, Carla married a man about twenty nine years older than her by the name of Jack David Solomon, a twenty nine year age difference. Jack himself is a bit of a character. He's one of the few people who have been born in America that possesses such an immense affinity for Israel. And oh, yeah, we're going there. Jack has been a leading executive, or simply the leading executive, at a plethora of some of the largest companies on earth, many of which possess multi billion dollar evaluations and or are simply government operations. For instance, for whatever reason, he was plopped into the chairman position of the board of directors for things like Federal Land and Development Corporation for thirty six years and Federal Research and Development and Advanced Patent Technical. All sorts of things that when I'm reading it make me go, Who are you really, bro? Especially because a sort of thing like that requires power, influence, money, control, and access and gains you a lot of power, influence, money, control, and access. And for this next bit, I'm just gonna skim through some of the organizations he's been highlighted as being a member of from his death website, although I assure you there are likely many, many others. National Directory Quality Operations Foundation, 1963 to 1966. He's a sponsor of the National Hospital of Denver. He's also the co founder of the Israeli Armored Core Museum. Patron, Orr, Chadash, Orphanage Israel. Vice Chairman, California Democratic Council, 1966 to 1970. Candidate for California State, 1966. Director of the United Jewish Foundation, 1956 to 1967, committee member for the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, member of the World Affairs Council, member of the president's cabinet for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, member Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce. Oh, yeah. That would be because he was a controversial casino owner. He was also the director of the Utah Shakespearean Festival in 1999 to 2000. Seems like a weird addition. He's also the member of the American Air Museum in Britain, a foundation member, the Armed Forces Commission and Electronics Association, sounds powerful, National Aeronautics Association, International Association of Business and Professional, honorary. Benai Brith, President Club, Utah Valley State College. Yes, that's where Charlie Kirk was shot. President Club, Brigham Young University. President Club, World Jewish Congress, life. Thirty second degree Mason, Scottish Rite, life. Yeah. So a lot of things should stand out to you there. The UVU, the massive ties to Israel, the powerful committees and organizations. And I could really out for a while just about the Israel connections alone and why that's weird. But if I have to tell you that, then you've probably been living under a rock and missed the dozens of red flags I just read. But these connections do go deeper than that, so deep that Bro paid for and restored the ancient Zion's Gate And Plaza in Jerusalem, which is rather a big deal to folks over there. Needless to say, he's sort of a huge deal in that community, and he's also very clearly connected to the highest echelons of the government and business, and the people who decide if and what you shall eat. What an odd family member for Eric could have considering I was under the impression she was a Christian girl from Scottsdale, Arizona. But if this all didn't elucidate you to the fact that we are talking about some seriously connected people, like I said, he's a member of this thing called, that I can't pronounce, it's a Jewish secret society named B'nai Brith. It's a very unique organization, very secret society esque, very Freemason esque, which apparently is controversial because they claim it's antiseptic to say that they are Freemason related despite having a huge portion of their founding members actually being Freemasons as well. So take that as you may, but whatever, toss that aside. We also know from that whole blurb, Jackie, who is a thirty second degree Freemason, which should be ringing bells for everybody from the most unfamiliar with this sort of, quote unquote, world to the most familiar. The Masons are weird, weird people. I've had personal experiences with them. I'm for sure on a list of theirs. That's a story from another time. But if you're really unfamiliar, putting it as short as I can, it's an organization that is a complete secret society. It's very occult. They worship Satan, but that's a point for another time. They have been known as global manipulators for centuries. Countries have banned them because of who they are, but they are known to use their wealth and intrigue to control nations and to shape the futures of people and nations, and may or may not, definitely were, in my opinion, involved in assassinations historically and things like the planting of people into positions of power that allowed them to exert further control and influence and, you know, the everyday stuff. But I'm sure none of that should sound even remotely familiar or be ringing true for the overarching Erica Kirk story, because that'd be weird. On top of all this, Solomon's also known for some immense scandals, including stock fraud, investor fraud, casino fraud. In fact, he built a casino and then got taken out of the CEO position because of his fraudulent activities. He wasn't allowed to be in control of the company anymore. All sorts of stuff like that. And then you can go, that seems like quite the character. And yet he amassed massive fortunes and got appointed to all these big companies and was also appointed to the government to do very important roles. So it makes you wonder who he actually knew and who he actually was. But leaving those two oddball characters right in the dust, here's where things are going to get even lunier. Rostein is not only a relatively rare name, making it more than not a symbol to trace, it's also an infamous name, most especially if you're a sports aficionado, specifically baseball. Let me explain though. Long before Alan and Jack were manipulating corporations, looting the masses, and stacking it up into their $13,000,000 homes, let me reiterate, dollars 13,000,000? That's the sort of money only like a handful of a handful of people on earth possess, so what's going on there? And I think I know the answer because there is a pretty clear progenitor to the Rothstein proclivity of purloining the populace's purse. And his name was Arnold Rothstein, a Jewish criminal who, it's widely asserted, fixed the nineteen nineteen World Series. He bet over a quarter of $1,000,000, which at that time is an unprecedented fortune. Roughly $5,000,000 today, but it doesn't really factor in for the lack of mind power and what all that means. He, in essence, made the bet, the wager, that Chicago would lose the Cincinnati Red Stockings in nineteen nineteen World Series. For color on who Rothstein is, he didn't come out of nowhere. Rothstein was a longtime fixer, or in other words, cheater, as well as financier of crimes of all kinds from the least degenerate to the maximum degeneracy. But in this specific instance with the nineteen nineteen World Series, he, through a series of payoffs and threats to, you know, people's families, ensured that the Cincinnati Rez won the people who he bet on, which is illegal for all sorts of reasons. Arnold, though, having friends in politics let me reiterate, politics, the legal system, like judges, and the police got off on all charges despite being the most obvious crime ever. Arnold was not a great guy to replicate or follow in the steps of, but he has become infamous enough that he even shows up in literature and movies, most specifically as a character of Mayor Wolfsheim in the not so great, kind of shortsighted and whip Gatsby. You can also thank Arnold for most of the crime syndicates that formed in the intervening years after his death. Yes, was shot to death, surprise, surprise. And the modern day drug and human trafficking, etcetera, of today was in large part possible because of his initial funding of such crime networks. So, yeah, really an interesting guy in that family tree. But all in all, he's just an awful dude. But importantly, he's a Rothstein. So here I'm gonna say something. There is a missing link, I think it's one of the most critical links possible. I hope you all can assist me here with it. Arnold Rothstein, likely resulting from his profession of, you know, murdering people and causing crime, kept it under wraps if and how many children he had and where they lived. And so it's been very hard to really connect to who he is. But if you look down the family tree and at some of his siblings and all that, you will notice that there are more Rothsteins that continue on the family name. But they all do something very interesting across genealogy sites, and the genealogy sites themselves might be in on this. And the thing they do is that they redact the children of these initial Rothsteins. And so that makes it very hard, dare I say impossible, for us to know who are actually Rothsteins today and if they're 100% connected to one another. And so I asked you guys to help me out here to try and find these missing links to start building this family tree so we can officially connect Erica Kirk to these Rothsteins and to these known criminals and justice system manipulators, just generally bad people. And I imagine that they probably keep this quiet and are trying to hide their identities, especially if Erica Kirk is one of them, because it would be pretty obvious that we shouldn't trust these people as there are generations of Rothsteins who have committed all of these heinous crimes, and to think that they would be in such positions of power today might cause the American people to go, We don't really want that, do we? But I don't want to yap too much, but we have this very obvious missing link, and it's hard to bridge those sorts of things when you cover up and when the family covers up all this information. But there's one thing the family can't account for, and I think it's rather ironic, that the Rothsteins have seemingly never built anything of value themselves, but they certainly do know how to steal it. And so you have the original Rothstein stealing, the Solomon guy stealing, and then you have Alan Rothstein also stealing and committing fraud. It seems like the real family trait in the family heirloom is the ability to thieve and commit crimes and to get away with it enough to profit. Once again, let me reiterate $13,000,000 house, yet he's never built a business. Digressing though and getting back to the main track, it seems bizarre then that we have all these missing links, and then we've also got Erika Kirk who won't really discuss her mom's side, past her mom and the missing names and the using the incorrect Swedish terms and the fact that there aren't any pictures of really her parents' face. And on that note, there is one video that exists that people speculate might be her grandparents, and it's on screen now. In any case, though, it does make it increasingly difficult to trace her. But digressing again, we go through all of this family history to say that this is very possibly Erica Kirk's ancestry. And if we consider just how terrible these people are and the things they've been up to, including political manipulation, if Erica Kirk is related to them, that would be an insane link that would really throw a wrench in her story. And I think it would be enough for people to go, Hold on, wait a minute. And I suspect that's why we won't officially know unless someone out there, one of you guys can find that missing link for us, for which I'd be so grateful. But something else interesting is still worth noting. We might not know Erica's exact family lineage, but presuming that they are Rosteen's, it's rather strange then that Rosteen shares family ties to another family, another prominent Jewish family that has been the center of many, many theories for hundreds of years and has been involved in everything from currency manipulation to economic crashes and to assassinations and everything in between. And that family would be the Rothschilds. Indeed, I was rather surprised to see that the two families are related and pretty directly because all I had to do is scroll over to the side and boom, there it was. The Rothsteins and the Rothschilds, two infamous crime families connected or right next to one another. Who knows? Maybe this is all just one giant coincidence wrapped in a coincidence taped in a rigmarole, but I really don't believe in those, and I'm not comfortable just saying things are just a coincidence. I think that's a lazy excuse when too many facts start presenting themselves. And so I will leave it on this note. I firmly believe that what looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck is probably a duck.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨EXPOSED: The Many Lies of Erika Kirk Pt.1 - Family & Child Trafficking From: @ScooperofCoop FOLLOW Him! https://youtu.be/5_fx4LIGf1M?si=w2lZe6jqnes7Hmo4

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - April 13, 2026 at 2:04 PM

Saved - April 13, 2026 at 3:07 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I found Lori Frantzve named in Snowden’s Prism leaks, listed under “DOX” as an NSA agent, tying Erika Kirk’s mom to the intelligence web. The posts argue she’s an intelligence asset, with Erika groomed to intersect Charlie Kirk, using Lori’s defense/intel connections. The INSA directory shows aliases for Lori and links to AZ-Tech/IMET Labs, suggesting Erika’s life may sit inside a deeper, dynastic intel network.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨EXPOSED: Lori Frantzve Appears In Edward Snowden LEAKED Prism Docs As "NSA Agent"—Erika Kirk's Mom CONFIRMED As Intelligence Asset.😱 I just discovery Lori Frantzve’s name in the leaked documents released by Edward Snowden. This document explicitly lists her under a section titled "DOX," identifying her among a group of alleged NSA agents whose personal data was exposed. For those of us tracking the "New TPUSA" narrative, this isn't just a coincidence—it’s a confirmation of the Intelligence Asset theory. 🚩 The "Legacy" of Lori Frantzve Lori’s inclusion in a list of NSA personnel alongside former directors like Lt Gen Kenneth Minihan adds massive weight to the claim that she has spent her career embedded in the deep-state apparatus. If Lori is a confirmed intelligence asset, her daughter's entire life story suddenly looks like a meticulously managed operation. 🎭 The Targeted Infiltration of Charlie Kirk The pieces are fitting together perfectly. We’ve always suspected that Erika’s "chance" meeting with Charlie in an airport was too convenient to be real. Based on this new link to the NSA, the investigation suggests a much darker timeline: The Grooming: Erika didn't just stumble into the movement; she was likely directed by Lori, using her mother's defense and intelligence connections to "target" Charlie Kirk. Remember Erika changed her entire image—pretending to be exactly the kind of traditional Christian woman she knew Charlie’s faith and values would attract—just to lure him in. If Erika is being directed by an NSA-linked mother, then the "widow" we see today isn't a leader; she’s an operator holding the line for her mother’s interests. 🏛️ Why This Changes Everything This link to the NSA PRISM database and Snowden documents proves that the Lori's Tech background was just a cover for something much deeper. When a former CIA analyst says Erika Kirk's behavior is "not fucking normal," and then we find her mother in a leaked NSA dox, the "coincidence" officially dies. They are running a script, and the script was written by people with badges and high-level security clearances. Is Erika a grieving widow, or is she the second generation of an intelligence dynasty? The "DOX" doesn't lie. I'll link the full set of leaked NSA docs in the comments below so you can check them out for yourself. Share this everywhere, The evidence is piling up. 👇

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

Edward Snowden Leaked Slides For CIA Prism Database Containing Erika Kirk's Mom's name Lori Frantzve being listed as a "NSA Agent". https://archive.org/stream/MoreNewSecretDocuments/EdwardSnowdenAndOpnsaDoxParts1-3_djvu.txt

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - April 5, 2026 at 11:56 PM

Saved - April 9, 2026 at 10:17 PM

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨UPDATE: The Full Story Is EVEN Worse— TPUSA Cut His Mic, But The Crowd Revolted 😳 Yesterday, we dropped the clip of the GW University student exposing the "New" TPUSA’s staged Q&A. Well, he just dropped the full breakdown of what actually happened in that room, and it is a masterclass in cowardice from Erika Kirk and the event organizers. If you thought the plants were bad, wait until you hear how far they went to silence this kid. Here are the receipts from the room: The Calculated Shut Down: The student was 5th in line. He realized the first 3 spots were given to TPUSA plants. Then, a TPUSA worker walked up and explicitly told him the Q&A would end exactly after the person in front of him. They engineered the clock to run out before a single actual student could ask a question. The Crowd Rebellion: The students in the room realized they were being played. When TPUSA tried to shut it down, the crowd ERUPTED. They literally forced the organizers to let this student speak. The Ultimate Cowardice: Even after the crowd demanded he be heard, TPUSA refused to give him a microphone. For half of his question, he had to scream at the top of his lungs just to be heard over the handlers. The Death of "Prove Me Wrong" Let this sink in: They had the floor for two solid hours of uninterrupted, scripted rhetoric. But they were so terrified of the truth that they couldn't stomach two minutes of an actual student asking a real question. Charlie Kirk built Turning Point by walking into hostile territory, setting up a table, and handing the microphone directly to the people who hated him the most. He thrived on the debate. Now? The organization he built is rigging the lines with paid plants, cutting the audio on college kids, and hiding Erika Kirk behind a wall of fake free speech. It is not a movement anymore; it is a protection racket. "Why in an event that was supposed to uplift GW students' voices, do we designate the first three spots to people planted there by Turning Point themselves?" That is the question they refused to answer. Watch the full clip. The facade is crumbling, and the students are the ones tearing it down. 👇 From: @charise_lee FOLLOW Him!

Video Transcript AI Summary

Turning Point tried to silence me and its opposition, and here is the full story. Yesterday, Turning Point held an event at my school, George Washington University, featuring Erica Kurt and Caroline Levitt. GW students were promised a Q&A at the end of the event. When people started lining up for the Q&A, I got in line and soon learned that at least three out of four of the people in front of me were part of the event themselves. These people were planted there by Turning Point and designated the first few spots in the Q&A. Soon after the Q&A started, a Turning Point worker came up to me and told me that the Q&A would end after the person in front of me in line. Essentially, Turning Point was going to end their Q&A before any actual students could ask questions. Keep in mind that this event up to this point was two hours of nonstop conservative rhetoric despite half of the audience being GW students that didn't agree with the administration. So an organization that claims to believe in freedom of speech and healthy disagreement was going to refuse to let half of their audience have their voices heard. But the crowd did not let that happen. After they ended the Q&A, the crowd erupted to let my question be heard, to at least have one student's opinion heard. And they didn't even give me a mic for half of my question. I had to shout at the top of my lungs for the only two minutes of the two hour show where someone could voice the concerns of millions of American people. And while, yes, I understand that they are running out of time for the event, my question is why in an event that was supposed to uplift GW students' voices did we designate the first three spots of the Q&A to people planted there by Turning Point themselves?

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Turning Point tried to silence me and its opposition, and here is the full story. Yesterday, Turning Point held an event at my school, George Washington University, featuring Erica Kurt and Caroline Levitt. And GW students were promised a q and a at the end of the event. When people started lining up for the q and a, I got in line. I was fifth in line, and I soon learned that at least three out of four of the people in front of me were part of the event themselves. These people were planted there by Turning Point and designated the first few spots in the q and a. Soon after the q and a started, a Turning Point worker came up to me and told me that the q and a would end after the person in front of me in line. Essentially, Turning Point was going to end their q and a before any actual students could ask questions. Keep in mind that this event up to this point was two hours of nonstop conservative rhetoric despite half of the audience being GW students that didn't agree with the administration. So an organization that claims to believe in freedom of speech and healthy disagreement was going to refuse to let half of their audience have their voices heard. But the crowd did not let that happen. After they ended the q and a, the crowd erupted to let me my question to at least have one student's opinion be heard. And they didn't even give me a mic for half of my question. I had to shout at the top of my lungs for the only two minutes of the two hour show where someone could voice the concerns of millions of American people. And while, yes, I understand that they are running out of time for the event, my question is why in an event that was supposed to uplift GW students' voices did we designate the first three spots of the q and a to people planted there by Turning Point themselves?

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 EXPOSED: Erika Kirk Caught RIGGING THE Q & A Event At GW University This Week - Student Says 3 Of Out The Person's Were PLANTED And Questions Were STAGED!😱 If you needed any more proof that Erika Kirk has completely abandoned the principles Charlie Kirk built his life on, here is the smoking gun. A student who just attended the Turning Point USA event at GW University featuring Erika Kirk and Karoline Leavitt just did an interview blowing the whistle on the entire operation. According to the students on the ground, the "Free Speech" event was a carefully orchestrated, heavily censored theater production. According to the student in the clip: The "Plants": At least 3 out of the 4 people who got to ask questions during the Q&A were literally affiliated with the event/organization. They were planted there. Not Even Students: Half of the people hand-picked to ask questions weren't even actual GW students! The Cut-Off: The organizers rigged the line so their "plants" could ask soft-ball, pro-administration questions. Then, the absolute second an actual student with a dissenting opinion stepped up to the mic, they magically "ran out of time" and shut the entire thing down. Because they can’t handle the heat. This student said it best: He respected Charlie because Charlie actually valued freedom of speech and talked to people who disagreed with him. This new regime is just creating a safe space bubble to protect themselves from real questions—like, perhaps, questions about the investigation into Charlie's death? Charlie Kirk built his entire legacy on the "Prove Me Wrong" table. He was fearless. He wanted to debate the other side, and he never backed down from a tough question from a hostile student. The "New" TPUSA? They are terrified of unscripted moments. The students are waking up. The movement sees right through the facade. Watch the clip for yourself. What happened to the fearless TPUSA we used to know? 👇 From: @CalltoActivism FOLLOW Them!

Video Transcript AI Summary

I am disappointed in how Turning Point is handling freedom of speech, especially in relation to Charlie Kirk’s approach, which I used to respect for valuing freedom of speech and engaging with people you disagree with. In this event, the people who went before me in the Q&A were part of the event themselves and were designated those spots in line for the Q&A. At least three out of four of them, and possibly the fourth, were designated spots for people who know they support the administration. They also knew the time was limited. They end the Q&A before the first person who opposes the administration, and possibly before the first person who isn’t part of the event themselves. This is in addition to the 20 other people behind me in line who also wanted to ask a question but didn’t have time. I don’t blame them for ending the Q&A because they were running out of time; Caroline Levitt is nine months pregnant now, so I understand the timing. But if you have limited time, why are you not allowing the actual students to speak first? The concern is that spots were designated to attendees who are aligned with the administration, reducing opportunities for dissenting or non-aligned voices, and that this occurred in a setting where there is limited time for questions.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: If you could say something to Erica Kirk right now, what would you tell her? Speaker 1: I am disappointed in how her organization now, Turning Point, is handling freedom of speech. Because one thing that I did really respect about Charlie Kirk was the fact that he did value freedom of speech. And he did go and he talked to people that he disagreed with. And that is something that just seems to be partially lost. And, you know, with this event, I've talked about it some, but just to clarify even more, the people that went before me in the q and a, they were part of the event themselves. And they were designated those spots in line for the q and a, as well. At least three out of four of them. I'm not positive on the fourth, but at least three out of four of them. And so they're designating the spots and also at least half of them were not GW students either. They're designating the spots to ask their panelists to people that they know support the administration, in a situation where they also know that they have limited time. And then they end the q and a before they get to the first person that opposes the administration, and possibly the first person that isn't part of the event themselves, not to mention the 20 other people behind me in line who also wanted to ask a question and didn't have time to do so. And so I don't blame them for ending the q and a because sure they were running out of time. I get it. Know, Caroline Levitt is what nine months pregnant now. I understand. But if you have limited time, why are you not allowing the actual students to speak first?

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 Erika Kirk Just Said She DOESN'T Care About What People Say About Her Online — She Cares So LITTLE That She's Sent Me Not One But TWO Cease And Desist Letters 🤣 We just caught Erika Kirk in yet another lie. She sat down for a softball interview and claimed she "really does https://t.co/jsc6RtwrDY

Video Transcript AI Summary

Speaker 0 asserts that people might ask about what they’re saying about them by accident, but they don’t have time and actually don’t care. They are currently busy playing MagnetTiles, which is described as far more important. Diapers are acknowledged as well. The speaker views the ongoing commentary as an endless onslaught that amounts to noise.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: No. Totally. There'll be people that are like, did you see what they're saying about you on accident? Like, I quite frankly I don't have time. And actually, quite frankly, I really do not care. I am actually really busy right now playing Magnetiles, and that is way more important. Diapers? Yes. Then hearing the endless That's right. Onslaught that really is just noise.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - April 9, 2026 at 12:09 PM

Saved - April 9, 2026 at 2:17 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I expose how TPUSA and Tyler Bowyer launched VoteOnline LLC to harvest rally attendees’ data under a neutral front. VoteOnline’s address matches TPUSA HQ, its CEO Amy Smith is a TPUSA staffer, and she’s married to Austin Smith tied to petition fraud. Attendees’ names, addresses, birth dates, phones, and voting intent are collected and shared with Turning Point Action, creating a data dragnet masquerading as patriotism.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨BOMBSHELL: TPUSA is Laundering YOUR Data Through a "Neutral" SHELL Company— Here's The PROOF VoteOnline LLC is a Secret TPUSA Front!😱 If you’re planning on heading to the "Build the Red Wall" rally in Phoenix on April 17th to see President Trump and Erika Kirk, you need to read the fine print. Turning Point USA and Tyler Bowyer have launched a new operation designed to suck up your personal data—and they’re using yet another shell company as thefront to do it. TPUSA is requiring everyone who wants to attend the rally to "check their voter registration status." But they aren't sending you to a government site. They are funneling you through a mysterious new nonprofit called VoteOnline LLC The Disguise: The site is branded in purple and green with zero TPUSA logos. It looks like a non-partisan civic tool. The Reality: Buried in the privacy policy, the address for VoteOnline is the exact same building as TPUSA headquarters in Phoenix. The Leadership: The CEO of VoteOnline is Amy Smith, a longtime TPUSA employee. 🕵️‍♂️ THE AUSTIN SMITH CONNECTION It gets darker. Amy Smith is married to Austin Smith, the former state lawmaker and TPUSA Senior Director who was caught forging signatures for his own election. He pleaded guilty to attempted fraud, yet he’s reportedly back in the TPUSA fold. As Republican strategist Tyler Montague put it: "They don’t give a rip about his fraud and cheating." They are using the same people who got caught rigging petitions to manage your private data. 📊 WHAT ARE THEY STEALING? When you "check your status" on their form, you aren't just giving them your name. You are handing over: Your physical address and birth date. Your phone number. How you plan to vote. Because VoteOnline is a 501(c)3, they claim they won't share data with "campaigns," but there is nothing stopping them from handing that entire database over to Turning Point Action—the political arm now run by Erika Kirk. 🧊 THE "HANDLERS" ARE WATCHING This is exactly what we’ve been warning you about, they are building a profile on every person in the country. They want to know who is a "high-propensity" donor so they can target you for cash and manipulation. While Erika Kirk talks about "transactional" relationships, her organization is treating your data like a commodity. They are using the President’s name to build a massive digital dragnet. Don't let them harvest your data under the guise of "patriotism." Why is TPUSA masquerading as a "non-partisan" site? Why are they using fraud-linked directors to run it? Gemini said 🚨 THE DATA HARVEST: TPUSA’S NEW "SILENT" SCAM EXPOSED. 🚨 If you’re planning on heading to the "Build the Red Wall" rally in Phoenix on April 17th to see President Trump and Erika Kirk, you need to read the fine print. Turning Point USA and Tyler Bowyer have launched a new operation designed to suck up your personal data—and they’re using a "neutral" front to do it. 🕸️ THE VOTE (.) ONLINE TRAP TPUSA is requiring everyone who wants to attend the rally to "check their voter registration status." But they aren't sending you to a government site. They are funneling you through a mysterious new nonprofit called VoteOnline. The Disguise: The site is branded in purple and green with zero TPUSA logos. It looks like a non-partisan civic tool. The Suspicious Pivot: In the past, TPUSA tried to boost its voter data machine using branded apps and tools with the organization’s name and logo. It failed because people were suspicious of the partisan branding. They learned their lesson—now they’re hiding behind a "non-partisan" mask to trick you into lowering your guard. The Reality: Buried in the privacy policy, the address for VoteOnline is 4945 E. Wilder Rd, Phoenix, AZ—the exact same building that houses Turning Point USA’s headquarters. The Leadership: The CEO of VoteOnline is Amy Smith, a longtime TPUSA employee and wife of Austin Smith—the man caught forging signatures on petitions. The Team: Staffers like Jonah Bodmer and Analise Alexander also appear in the directory—both are former employees of TPUSA and Turning Point Action. The Data Loophole: How it Works This is where the "scam" comes into play. Because VoteOnline is a (c)(3), it can harvest your most sensitive data under the guise of "voter registration" and "civic duty." The Harvesting: By requiring a "registration check" for events like the April 17th Phoenix rally, they gather your legal name, address, birth date, phone number, and—most importantly—voter intent (e.g., "How do you plan to vote this year?"). ⛓️ THE HAND-OFF: SMOKING GUN PROOF We’ve found the "legal" loophole they are using to strip you of your privacy. While (c)(3) nonprofits are supposed to be non-partisan, VoteOnline’s own privacy policy states they share data with "Partner organizations" that embed their portal. The Proof: We have secured the evidence. Turning Point USA’s own student website (tpusastudents(.)com/vote) has the VoteOnline portal embedded directly into their page. The Connection: This confirms that TPUSA is an official "Partner Organization." When you enter your data into VoteOnline, they are handing your profile directly over to Turning Point Action. The Operatives: Your data is going straight to an organization run by Erika Kirk and Tyler Bowyer. The Result: Your private info is scrubbed of its "non-partisan" label and turned into a weaponized political database used for targeting, fundraising, and manipulation. 🕵️‍♂️ THE PATTERN OF FRAUD One thing is certain: ethics are obstacle Tyler Bowyer cleared a long time ago. From forged signatures to data dragnets, fraud is the consistent thread in his career. Bowyer and Erika Kirk are the new architects of Turning Point, and they’ve pivoted from Charlie’s original vision to a high-stakes intelligence operation. This isn’t a leadership change at TPUSA; it’s a hostile takeover. They aren’t protecting the "Red Wall"—they’re harvesting the people who build it. They have hijacked Charlie’s legacy and are now using it as a cold-blooded cash grab, liquidating your privacy and selling your data to the highest bidder. The Red Wall is being built on your data. Spread the word before April 17th. 👇

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - April 6, 2026 at 9:39 AM

Saved - April 6, 2026 at 11:26 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I report that Theo Von asked Jake Paul if Erika Kirk had anything to do with her husband’s death. I saw Jake sweating, swigging Listerine, and stuttering as he avoided the topic. I take his refusal to discuss “sensitive details” as the loudest answer, implying he thinks she’s guilty and fears those protecting her. The dam is breaking, and influencers can’t hide the truth.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨SHOCKING: Jake Paul Just Exposed the Truth About Erika Kirk: His Answer Tell's You EVERYTHING You Need To Know!😱 Theo Von just dropped an absolute nuke on his podcast, and it resulted in one of the most telling reactions ever caught on camera. Out of nowhere, Theo looks Jake Paul dead in the eye and asks the exact question the entire movement has been demanding an answer to: "Do you think Erika Kirk had anything to do with her husband's death?" Watch the clip. Look at Jake Paul’s body language. The internal panic is instant. He is visibly stressed, shifting in his seat, sweating, and literally starts swigging Listerine mouthwash just to buy himself time. When he finally manages to speak, he stutters and completely deflects: "I'll talk about a lot of things, but I don't think I'll talk about Charlie Kirk and his assassination... the sensitive details around it. Oh, dude, I don't even wanna f*ing talk about it." The Psychological Tell Here is the undeniable reality of human behavior: If you are asked if a widow participated in her husband's murder, and you genuinely believe she is innocent, the answer is an immediate, reflexive "No, of course not. That's insane." You don't start sweating. You don't stutter. And you certainly don't nervously try to change the subject to avoid the "sensitive details." Jake Paul has made a massive career out of running his mouth. He calls out billionaires, professional fighters, and politicians without batting an eye. He isn't afraid of anybody. Yet, when asked this one specific question about Erika Kirk, he completely folds and refuses to answer. That refusal is the loudest answer he could possibly give. By declining to defend her—and by looking absolutely terrified at the prospect of even discussing the "sensitive details" on a microphone— @jakepaul just told the entire world exactly what he really believes. If he thought she was innocent, he would have just said so. In my opinion his physical panic proves he thinks she's guilty, but he knows exactly how dangerous the people protecting her really are. The dam is breaking, and even the biggest influencers on the planet can't hide the truth on their faces anymore. From: @KillaKreww

Video Transcript AI Summary

It's comedy Goldfish, dude. We're fucked. We're fucked, dude. This is horrible. All we've done is lobby for fucking black faced. This whole pod and nothing else, dude. But we're gonna keep it moving, man. Do you think okay. Let's let's start over. Okay. Do you think Erica Kirk had anything to do with her husband's death? Let's switch it up. Let's switch it up. And that's mouthwashing up. But, yeah, keep effing some. Dude, I love Listerine, bro. It's a fucking good stuff. That's a new Listerine green apple. Bro, you're funny, dude. I don't know if you can ask that question. Funny. Okay. I don't know. I'll talk about a lot of things, but I I I don't think I'll talk about Charlie Kirk and his assassination Okay. And the sensitive details around it. Oh, dude. I don't even wanna fucking talk about it. It's just on our list of stuff. So I'll keep it moving. Some some AI, you chat GBT what to ask Jake Paul, and then it told you this. It was like things What will go most viral? It said things Jay Fall could handle. And, yeah, one of them was frizz golf. One of them was, oh, the Tiger Woods DUI. That was kind of crazy.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: It's comedy Goldfish, dude. We're fucked. We're fucked, dude. This is horrible. All we've done is is lobby for fucking black faced. This whole pod and nothing else, dude. But we're gonna keep it moving, man. Do you think okay. Let's let's start over. Okay. Do you think Erica Kirk had anything to do with her husband's death? Let's switch it up. Let's switch it up. And that's mouthwashing up. But, yeah, keep effing some. Dude, I love Listerine, bro. It's a fucking good stuff. That's a new Listerine green apple. Bro, you're funny, dude. I don't know if you can ask that question. Funny. Okay. I don't know. I'll talk about a lot of things, but I I I don't think I'll talk about Charlie Kirk and his assassination Okay. And the sensitive details around it. Oh, dude. I don't even wanna fucking talk about it. It's just on our list of stuff. So I'll keep it moving. Some some AI, you chat GBT what to ask Jake Paul, and then it told you this. It was like things What will go most viral? It said things Jay Fall could handle. And, yeah, one of them was frizz golf. One of them was, oh, the Tiger Woods DUI. That was kind of crazy.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - April 5, 2026 at 1:45 PM

Saved - April 6, 2026 at 6:17 PM

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 BREAKING: The Tyler Robinson Case Is About To Be DISMISSED Because Of TPUSA And Their PAID Shills Tainting The Jury— The Defense Just Filed A SCATHING Motion And They Named Names! 😲🔥 If you want a masterclass in how to completely destroy your own case, look no further than the absolute circus surrounding the Tyler Robinson trial. The defense has just filed a SCATHING new motion (dated March 30, 2026) demanding the judge block cameras from the courtroom yet AGAIN. And when I say scathing, I mean they took a flamethrower to the government, the media, TPUSA, and the massive army of "shill influencers" who are acting as judge, jury, and executioner before a single piece of evidence has been presented in court. Here is what the mainstream media isn't telling you about this filing: The judge in this case placed a strict gag order designed to prevent government officials, lawyers, and key witnesses from speaking out and declaring Tyler Robinson’s guilt prior to trial. Yet, what is TPUSA doing? Erika Kirk and Blake Neff have been out there routinely running their mouths, violating the spirit—if not the letter—of this gag order. They are relentlessly pushing the approved government narrative that Robinson is the "leftist who killed Charlie Kirk." 📜 The "Honorable Mentions" Roll Call The defense motion doesn't just blast the government; it literally names the specific influencers and X accounts that are parroting these bullshit lines and poisoning the public well. According to the defense, these accounts are actively destroying Robinson’s right to a fair trial. The motion gives "honorable mention" to an entire list of influencers for running a coordinated conviction-by-tweet campaign: ⚖️ The Ultimate Irony: They Are Handing Him a Dismissal The defense is furious that this mob is declaring their client guilty and pushing the "crazed leftist assassin" narrative. But here is the massive irony that Erika Kirk, TPUSA, and these influencers are entirely too blind to see: By doing this, they are actively tainting the jury pool. In our justice system, if a jury pool is so poisoned by media and influencer interference that a fair trial becomes impossible, the defense has grounds for a mistrial, an appeal, or an outright dismissal of all charges. The very people screaming the loudest declaring Tyler's guilt are giving his defense team the exact ammunition they need to get him off the hook completely. It is a catastrophic level of legal incompetence. They don't want a trial. They want a reality TV show. And their coordinated psyop to convict this guy in the court of public opinion might just be the reason the actual court throws the whole case in the trash. Read the FULL FILING BELOW (pause to read). Look at the names. They are playing a very dangerous game. 👇

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 EXPOSED: How TPUSA Is VIOLATING The Judge's GAG Order In The Tyler Robinson Case— The Only People Tainting the JURY Work for TPUSA. 🪞🧐 It is truly remarkable to watch the level of emotional hysteria coming from the TPUSA camp lately. They love to point the finger at independent researchers—the "conspiracy theorists," as they call us—accusing us of "contaminating the jury pool." But as @baroncoleman just forensically demonstrated, the only people ACTUALLY violating the GAG ORDER and the law are TPUSA. Let’s look at the Gag Order that Erika Kirk and Blake Neff seem to think doesn't apply to them: The Legal Reality ⚖️ Baron pulled the receipts. Publicity Notice F-2025-012 identifies Erika Kirk and Blake Neff as witnesses. Under Rule 3.6, witnesses are strictly prohibited from making extrajudicial statements regarding the guilt of the accused. Yet, what do we see? Blake Neff is all over X and national radio, definitively declaring Tyler Robinson’s "guilt," citing DNA, and claiming "confessions." Both @MrsErikaKirk and @BlakeSNeff have recieved direct notices from the court, yet the @TPUSA PR machine continues to churn. The Real Danger 🏗️⚔️ Here is the part they don't want you to understand: By flagrantly disregarding a judge’s order to campaign for a conviction in the court of public opinion, they are creating a massive legal liability. If the jury pool is sufficiently "tainted" by the prosecution’s own witnesses, a judge could—and SHOULD—throw the entire case out. 📉 Is their obsession with the "official" story so deep that they’d rather risk Tyler Robinson walking free than allow a real investigation into the PETN explosive and the EGYPTIAN flight patterns? ✈️📑 The "Maniac" Mirror 🪞 Blake calls us "maniacs," but WE aren't the ones under a court order. We aren't witnesses. We are private citizens exercising our First Amendment rights to ask why the 4K footage shows an explosion under a shirt, not a bullet from a 30.06 rifle. 🧐 Stop pointing the finger at the "us" and look in the mirror. If Tyler Robinson walks, it won't be because of a "conspiracy theory"—it will be because TPUSA couldn't keep their mouths shut. 🤐 Special thanks to @NihiloX for putting together this clip and to @baroncoleman for pointing out the glaringly obvious. FOLLOW both these awesome journalist.

Video Transcript AI Summary

The discussion centers on a gag order (pretrial and trial publicity) governing what prosecutors, defense attorneys, and their associated witnesses can say publicly. The speakers explain that the order prevents extrajudicial statements by anyone on the prosecution or defense teams, including witnesses, that would amount to stating a defendant is guilty, which Rule 3.6 prohibits. They note that investigators, sheriffs, and DAs are cautious in press contexts to avoid declaring guilt, instead laying out what is known and why someone was arrested, with the jury deciding guilt. The participants clarify who the order covers: “witness” includes all witnesses part of the prosecution or defense teams, and any lay witnesses whom the parties have a good faith belief will testify at hearing or trial. They identify specific individuals as potential witnesses under the order, including Erica Kirk (wife of someone associated with TPUSA), Blake Neff, Mikey McCoy, Dan Flood, and other TPUSA employees, as well as Andrew Colvin who, they note, may be outside the letter of the restriction because he did not attend the scene (though his association with TPUSA or Ms. Kirk could raise concerns). They reference a publicity notice directed at Erica Kirk and discuss that she may testify at the penalty phase or guilt phase regarding TPUSA and Charlie Kirk, which would implicate her in the order’s restrictions on extrajudicial statements. They indicate Blake Neff and others at TPUSA were identified as being at the scene or notified, suggesting their statements could violate Rule 3.6 if they declare guilt or express guilt-directed opinions. The dialogue shifts to concrete examples the speakers consider to be violations by Blake Neff. They quote several Blake Neff statements: (1) a post describing Joe Kent and Tyler Robinson, asserting guilt or certainty about the defendant’s guilt; (2) a radio show segment in which Neff discusses the case and references guilt; (3) a series of exchanges and summaries where Neff discusses the murder, the weapon, and DNA findings, with statements implying guilt. They present these as explicit violations of the gag order and Rule 3.6 as they interpret them. They also reference the broader media environment, noting that critics argue the hosts and content creators (including Candace Owens, Coach, Didi, Ryan Matta, and others on X) are being accused of tainting the jury pool, while asserting that the prosecution never contacted them to restrict comments. The speakers acknowledge the possibility that others connected to TPUSA or affiliated parties may have observed or participated in discussions around the case, and they question why such statements would be made when the order prohibits commenting on guilt. The tone underscores tensions about who is bound by the order and what constitutes a violation, especially when public narratives surrounding the case reference guilt or innocence.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: This is the infamous gag order, a protection order regarding pretrial and trial publicity. This applies to attorneys, attorneys who are associated with the prosecution and defense. Speaker 1: It keeps them from intentionally knowing or recklessly permitting a witness like Neff. A witness like Neff. Investigator, consultant, staff member, or other member of Speaker 0: the prosecution defense team to make extrajudicial statements, which if made by the lawyer, would violate rule 3.6. Speaker 1: I would suggest to you without having to pull rule 3.6 real rule 3.6 prohibits anyone involved from saying the guy's guilty. In fact, investigators, sheriffs, D. A. Whenever they do these press conferences, they're very cautious of saying, hey, we'll tell you what we know, but we cannot say that he's guilty. A jury will determine that. Nevertheless, here's here are the facts we've got so far. Here's why we've arrested him. But that's not a statement of guilt. Why? Rule 3.6 can't do it. Not allowed to. Not allowed to. And this judge applied the same rule to Speaker 0: witnesses identified by the prosecution and the defense. Due to the confusion, the court grants the state's motion offers the following clarification. Speaker 1: This is the rule that we are operating under at present. The word Speaker 0: witness as used in the order applies to all witnesses who are part of the prosecution and defense teams. Any witness, including laywitnesses whom the prosecution or defense has a good faith belief will be called to testify at hearing or trial. Speaker 1: They have listed some of these. We know who they are. Speaker 0: For example, I'll show you one who I believe has violated this. Erica Kirk. Erica Kirk is under this order. As of December 16, at least, she was notified, but I would say she was under it from the time it was issued. Please forward the attached publicity notice to, I can assure you that says Erica Kirk because this says up here in the subject publicity notice to Erica Kirk, which is provided as ordered by the district court. We have identified miss, that's a short name, k I r k is short, as a potential witness at trial. She almost certainly will appear as a witness at the penalty phase of trial, I e wife, and perhaps the guilt phase to testify generally about TPUSA and Charlie Kirk. That's the wife. That's Erica Kirk. What does this mean? This means Erica Kirk may not make extrajudicial statements, which if made by the lawyer would reviolate rule 3.6. Rule 3.6 says you cannot say he's guilty. That's what that means. It also applies to Blake Neff. There are other documents in there that says and for the sake of time, I'm gonna speed up because I'm already over an hour and a half. Speaker 1: My voice is ruined. There are other Speaker 0: things in there that say anybody who was at Speaker 1: the scene and has been notified. Blake Neff was at the scene, and I believe he was also notified in there because of the same thing, the same type of indications in this documentation where it's pretty Speaker 0: obvious they're talking about Blake Neff. I would think Blake Neff, Mikey McCoy, and, Speaker 1: Erica Kirk, Dan Flood, you know, TP USA employees, all. Speaker 0: Now notice that's not Andrew Colvin. He can say whatever he wants. He wasn't there. It might be unbecoming of him to say those things considering he worked at TP USA. He works for Ms. Kirk. He is her PR person. People might assume if he says something, she believes it, but I don't know by the letter of Speaker 1: the law it would necessarily be a violation. But I wanna show you some what I believe are violations, at Speaker 0: least in my opinion. Here is one such example. Speaker 1: This is Blake Neff talking about Joe Kent. Tyler Robinson literally confessed to his parents Speaker 0: and was turned in by them and has DNA all over the weapon used to kill Charlie. But some people are obsessed with hating Israel. The same thing they're obsessed with literally every day. They will Speaker 1: try to help a murderer get off so they can keep pursuing their daily obsession. So that's Blake Neff. Twitter post number one. Speaker 0: Here is another of Blake Neff declaring the guilt of Tyler Robinson in vile in what I believe is violation of that order. Here is Blake Neff on a radio show. The news about Joe Kent testifying for Tyler Robinson broke just minutes before today's show. Speaker 1: I did not hold back my feelings about it. And I will scroll forward, Speaker 0: and we can hear now from Blake Neff's Speaker 2: Of murder. Let let's refresh people. There is a murder weapon that was found near the site of the shooting. It was owned by Tyler Robinson's family Given to him by his grandpa. Of the caliber used to shoot Charlie. It has his DNA all over it. All over the casings. He they release a photo of the shooter. They are not able to find him otherwise. Tyler Robinson's parents see that photo and think, that looks like Tyler. They begin asking him things like, where is your, I believe it was his grandfather's gun. Mhmm. They start asking him this. Tyler Robinson starts talking like he might kill himself. They get a friend of the family to sit down with him. He actually, he admits that it's him. They get him to drive up to Orem and turn himself in. His parents helped him turn him in. And we run into people who say that that didn't happen or that's fabricated. There's digital confessions. There's digital confessions, but also his parents are out there. They have never stepped forward and said this is a lie. Speaker 0: Well, that's not true, but, William. Speaker 2: They could easily do that. It would be trivial to do that if it was the case. They have not done that. Speaker 1: Okay. That's another example of Blake Neff basically saying he's guilty. Speaker 0: You would think that's all. No. In fact, it's not. Here's another example Speaker 1: of Blake Neff flagrantly disregarding this order. Tyler Robinson confessed to Speaker 0: his parents who turned him in. His DNA was found on the trigger of the rifle, found dumped in the woods near the UVU. Tyler has text mess test messages with his boyfriend confessing to the crime. A person resembling Tyler was caught on surveillance video. That actually reads more like it's in favor of the defense, but whatever. I don't think he meant it that way. Lest you are confused whether Tyler Robinson was at the scene and the order applies to him, I would submit to you this. Not only did we see him running at Blake Neff speed away from the crime, we also have him stating as much on the record. Speaker 2: About I would say it was about 10 feet to Charlie's left. Speaker 0: 10 feet to Charlie's left. I'm not gonna play the Speaker 1: rest of it just for time, but you understand my point here. We are being accused of tainting the jury pool. They're looking at your humble host. They're looking at Candace. They're looking at Coach. Looking at Didi. Speaker 0: They're looking at other people, podcasters. They're looking at content creators, Ryan Matta, people on Speaker 1: X. And they're saying these guys are changing the jury pool. I'm not under any order. The prosecution never contacted me and said I'm not allowed to talk about it. Did they contact you, Blake Neff Speed? Now keep in mind, I don't think you were in on it. I think, in my opinion, there were people you work with that were aware it was gonna happen, maybe even help coordinate it. But I don't Speaker 0: think it was Blake. Maybe, but I don't I mean, just as I'm sitting here today, I don't think it was him. But if you're going to Speaker 1: accuse us of attempting to obtain the jury pool while you're out Speaker 0: here flagrantly, in my opinion, disregarding the judge's order, commenting on his guilt or innocence, which you're not supposed to Speaker 1: be doing. In my opinion, you're not supposed be doing. Why are you doing that? Why are you why are you pointing the finger at us?

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 MEET THE 'NEW GARY': TPUSA’s Latest Talking Head Just Accidentally Proved Candace Owens Right.😂🤯 You have to almost feel sorry for Turning Point USA at this point. After their previous disinformation minister, "Gary," humiliated himself so thoroughly on this platform that https://t.co/PsZpeRg33z

Video Transcript AI Summary

The discussion centers on a Daily Mail headline claiming that the bullet “did not match” the rifle allegedly used by Tyler Robinson, and on what that actually means in forensic terms. Justin Nazaroff, CEO of Phoenix Ammunition, explains that the headline is a misleading representation of the court filing. He notes that the analysis looked at a bullet jacket fragment and was unable to determine that it came from the shooter’s rifle. He emphasizes that ballistic science is often a best guess and not a definitive match, and that a fragment can prevent a positive “match” while not ruling out that the rifle could have fired the bullet. He clarifies that the statement does not affirm what happened or what did not happen; it reports that there is reasonable doubt that the bullet came from the rifle, and that the fragment’s condition makes a conclusive identification impossible. The hosts observe that audiences expect a CSI Las Vegas-style reconstruction; they discuss how fragmentation complicates reassembly and matching of lands and grooves. Nazaroff reiterates that the fragmentation makes it impractical to determine a direct match to the barrel, and that other factors such as matching caliber are also not definitive in this case. He stresses that it is not possible to definitively identify the bullet’s origin from the fragment alone, and he cautions against assuming a single definitive conclusion from that evidence. The hosts note that other forensic possibilities exist beyond matching the bullet to the rifle. They mention that the metal could be tested to show whether it is the same metal as rounds recovered with the rifle, and that casings with engravings and other evidence are part of the broader evidentiary picture. Nazaroff adds that even with intact bullets, matching to a specific rifle is extremely difficult; for example, a 0.308 or 0.306 diameter bullet could come from multiple rifles with similar characteristics, and mangling of bullets further complicates attribution. He also references public comments from Candace Owens about the bullet being fragmented, and uses the idea of a “Schrödinger’s bullet” to illustrate the uncertainty inherent in fragmentation. The conversation covers the broader context of the case, including the defense’s reference to the large volume of evidence: discovery includes 20,000 files, 61,500 pages of documents and images, and over 700 hours of video. They mention that the parents and the trans-identifying boyfriend Lance Twiggs are expected to testify for the prosecution. They observe that this headline persists despite the existence of other, more comprehensive evidence. The discussion concludes with the point that ballistic science is inexact and that many people lack understanding of ammunition, stressing that the fragmentary bullet is only one piece of evidence among many. They note that the prosecution plans to push back the preliminary hearing by six months, and that the public has not yet viewed much of the videos and other materials. Nazaroff’s final takeaway is to recognize the inexact nature of ballistic conclusions and to avoid drawing firm conclusions from a single fragment.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: We had quite an evening. When we got, home, there was a breaking news story about, the Tyler Robinson trial, which, had stories. Wasn't actually breaking. Speaker 1: That's really what actually wanna emphasize because there's there's several pieces of it, and what people decided to run with online was pretty different from what you and I actually think is the biggest reveal of it. Speaker 0: There was a actually a lot of reveals, but it it people should know this. So, the Daily Mail comes out with an article that says, the bullet does not match the gun. Speaker 1: Th this is this is the literal headline that the Daily Mail used in which got millions of views on it. Millions. The headline was, bullet used to kill Charlie Kirk did not, all caps, match rifle allegedly used by suspect Tyler Robinson. New court filing claims. Now we're gonna have to unpack that. Speaker 0: We're gonna unpack a lot of that, but here to help us do it is somebody that I've been watching online for a while now. I've been really impressed with his takes. I've never met him in person before, but he agreed to come on because, he was instantly on top of this story. His name is Justin Nazaroff. He's the CEO of Phoenix Ammunition. Welcome to the show, Justin. Speaker 2: Thanks for having me, guys. Speaker 0: Yeah. It was the first time I've ever seen you, Justin, so it's it's it's great to see you. So let's just take apart this headline from the Daily Mail. I saw you criticizing it as sort of an egregious misrepresentation of the facts. They're saying the bullet does not match the rifle, you know, court filing claims. Right? What's your, read of what actually it says? Speaker 2: Well, I mean, it's one of those headlines where they can say something that's true, but because they leave out the context, as soon as you read the article, you can see why it's false. And so what they did was they analyzed a bullet jacket fragment and were unable to determine that it came from the shooter's rifle. So unfortunately, ballistic science is in a lot of cases a best guess, and in many other cases pseudoscience. But what we know is it doesn't work like CSI Las Vegas. When a bullet hits something and deforms, which is what we've been talking about the whole time, we're assuming that the shooter probably used a hollow point or some other bullet that is functionally intended to deform when it hits something. And so when it does that, it doesn't come out in a nice perfect form where you can see all the lands and grooves from the barrel and make a positive match. So in this case, they can't determine whether the bullet was fired from the rifle, but they also can't determine that it wasn't fired from the rifle. That's effectively all they're saying. They're saying that there's some reasonable doubt that it could theoretically have been something else. Now, and I'm not making an affirmative declaration one way or another. I want people to understand that. This has nothing to do with what I think happened or what anybody else thinks happened. All I'm doing is looking at the facts and as somebody who's been doing this for a very long time, knowing that most people just really don't understand much about firearms generally, and even people in the firearms community who do understand firearms generally don't really know a lot about ammunition. Speaker 0: Yeah. And so you're saying basically because the fragmentation of the bullet was so severe, you're I don't mean to sort of infer by your tone here, but you're saying, of course, this would be one of the options that of course, you wouldn't be able to necessarily identify it, via forensic evidence with the with the gun. There's other ways you could. Now the caliber matches, all of these kinds of things. But, you know, I think what people expect is sort of the c s CSI version of reality. A lot of people think Speaker 1: and I think this is a graphic you can see in TV shows or movies Yeah. Where they'll take, like, a bunch of little pieces of metal out of, like, you know Thin air then And then they'll, like, put them all onto, like, a little, you know, machine, and then, like, the computer will assemble all the bits, and they'll just see it. Oh, they'll, like, bend the bits and reassemble the bullet, and then, like, green text will pop up that says, confirmed ding Speaker 0: ding ding. Yeah. So, yeah, I'm just gonna read one of your tweets. I'm not gonna put it up on screen because you used some colorful language here, Justin, but you say completely and utterly misleading garbage about this Daily Mail headline. You say the bullet is unable to be identified because it's fragment. You use more colorful language here. It's fragmented into a bunch of pieces. And when that happens, they don't do some magic CSI Las Vegas animation where they manage to reassemble the bullet and perfectly align the lands and grooves to match a barrel. None of that is real. That is not how science works. And so I and then, you know, it was interesting to watch the Internet last night. This story hits. All the usual suspects take it and run it. And then a bunch of saner voices come in and say, this this is not something new. We've known that this the bullet fragmented. We knew that, like, lining up in the first Speaker 1: days afterwards Speaker 0: that bullet had cracked to the rifle was gonna be a a challenge, but there's other ways that you could you could match in theory. Right? And and again, I I respect that you're not trying to say this happened or that happened. You're just giving us the details. You're giving us the facts. There's other ways you could match a gun to a bullet. Speaker 1: Correct? Like, could use Speaker 0: match or they could test Speaker 1: the metal and show this is the same metal as the rounds that were recovered with the rifle. Sure. Which, remember, we have a rifle with rounds that have political messages engraved on them. Speaker 0: And the casing that they have from this also has a message engraved on it apparently that matches. Yeah. Speaker 2: I mean, I guess I'll I'll even I'll even walk that back a bit further. I it's actually very difficult to match a a bullet to a rifle. So for example, point three zero -six as a cartridge uses the same bullet that's used in point three zero eight Winchester. So even if you recovered a point three zero eight diameter bullet that was perfectly intact, if you didn't have the rifle that it was fired from to match the lands and grooves, there would be no way for you to determine that it was fired from a rifle chambered in three zero eight Winchester or point 30 -six. And so then when you start mangling up bullets that are roughly about the same size, a lot of medium to large caliber rifles use projectiles that are roughly the same length, roughly the same weight, roughly the same diameter. So if you smash those up into pieces, you may not even, they didn't have a rifle to compare it to, there's no guarantee that they would even be able to know what the caliber of the cartridge was beyond reasonable doubt. So it's a very inexact science. And in this case, you know, Candace Owens, I hate to bring her up, but she mentioned on her podcast on September 25 that the bullet was fragmented into pieces. So this is something that, you know, the people on that side of the fence have known for a long time, and this is, they're just basically milking more views and more audience out of the same information we already had. It's basically like Schrodinger's bullet, right? If they had managed to recover a fully intact bullet where the lands and grooves matched perfectly, People on the other side would say, well, it's obvious that the bullet was planted because you're telling me that a bullet was fired through a human being and it was it was in perfect condition. There's no way that that came out of Charlie Kirk. It must have been something that they fired in a test range, and this is what they're using to frame the shooter. Right. But in this case, because it's broken up into pieces, they can say, oh, we'll see. We can't even identify the bullet. So it's it must not have been Tyler Robinson. It has to be somebody else. It's just it's nonsense. Speaker 0: And again, this was not new news. There was a court filing. Actually, I think by the media that confirmed the the fragmentation of the bullet and the ATF report a couple of weeks back, but somehow this became the headline. The defense also referenced. So they they they use this to say, hey, we're gonna try and delay this trial even even more, which in my opinion would be unfortunate, because I think the country, there's a void that's filled. The the the legal system does not move at the speed of social media, and we see this causing problems all the time. But it's interesting. In this same document, they say the defense also referenced the massive size of evidence amassed by 28 law enforcement agencies in the case. According to the motion, the discovery in the case includes 20,000 files, 61,500 pages of documents and images, and over seven hundred hours of video. Not to mention, we also find out that the parents and the trans identifying boyfriend, Lance Twiggs, are gonna be prosecuted are gonna be testifying on behalf of the prosecution. And yet this is what becomes the headline. What do you make of all of that? Justin, when you, when you kind of take it all in together? Speaker 2: Well, it seems obvious that there are people who will latch onto the piece of evidence that they think can be most easily used to confuse people. Like I was getting at earlier, this a situation where no matter what they said about the bullet in particular, there would be a way for them to spin it to either approve or disprove what they think happened. So unfortunately, all the other evidence, the videos and what have you, none of that has been viewable by the public. And I think once that does become viewable, it will answer a lot of these questions and, you know, ideally get everybody on the same page. But for the time being, most of the theories on the other side of the table revolve around the idea that it could not have been Tyler Robinson because there's no way that a point zero -six could have caused the damage that it caused without causing more damage. And so Speaker 1: Well, it just Speaker 0: Yep. A pause right there because a lot of this has and and I hate going into it on this, but, at some point, we have to. Charlie was my friend. He was Blake's friend. He sat in this chair for years, and it's hard to even talk about this because it is graphic in nature. But, you know, a lot of this, conspiracy stuff goes around no exit wound. Well, there's different types of bullets, and I'm getting educated on this. And when you see fragmentation like this, what does that tell you about the nature of the round itself? What kind of, you know, there's hollow point, there's full metal jacket. There's does it tell you something about the type of round and why there wouldn't be an exit wound? Speaker 2: Yeah, it tells me that somebody wanted Charlie Kirk dead. I mean, that's really the long and the short of it. If you're going to assassinate somebody, you would most assuredly use some sort of a hollow point projectile or some other type of projectile that's designed to break into pieces because that's what causes the most terminal damage on the target. You would not want to use something like a full metal jacket bullet where it would pass all the way through the target and and re leave a a relatively small entry and possibly small exit room. So this is exactly what I would expect. I mean, you know, like, you hate to say it, but if if you are in a position to politically assassinate somebody, that's exactly the round that you would choose. So it tells me that this is somebody who thought about it a little bit and decided that they wanted somebody dead. It's consistent with somebody that knows enough about firearms to understand that you're using a hollow point round for things like hunting and self defense, specifically for that reason, because they expand, they unfold, they break into pieces, and generally leave no exit wound because in those cases, the idea is to prevent hitting somebody that's behind the person that you're trying to defend yourself from or causing it to pass all the way through an animal and perhaps endanger somebody behind it, or just at worst passing through and not causing enough damage to, you know, either eliminate the threat in the case of a self defense scenario or in the case of hunting, you know, to cause the animal to die quickly and humanely. This is this is 100% consistent with what I would have expected to What Speaker 0: I've gathered, you know, is that apparently in forty percent of cases involving high velocity rounds, they're unable to match a bullet to a weapon because of this fragmentation that happens. Apparently, it's it's very common. Almost almost half of the cases, you can't match it because the bullet is so badly damaged. Speaker 1: Which I wanna really dive into that because, okay, we're still able to, you know, make conclusions in cases where they can't make that match, and that's what we really should emphasize. The real news of the past few days from these filings from the defense is they're reacting to evidence that the prosecution is planning to present, including at the preliminary hearing that they want pushed back by six months because they're trying to drag this case out as long as possible. At the preliminary hearing, it is reported that the prosecution plans to call Tyler Robinson's parents and Tyler Robinson's furry boyfriend to the stand. So we've seen over and over, it's actually it just gets wildly alleged on social media that actually, his parents didn't turn him in. Actually, his parents don't They're not cooperating with police. They've just lied about these things, when in reality, we know from endless documentation, they were involved in turning him in, and now it appears that they're ready to testify in the case. Right. And that is how we're able to reach conclusions about this case without a bullet match. Speaker 0: Yeah. And I you can say the casings match, the DNAs match, the markings on the bullet casings match. Speaker 1: The text messages match. Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, there's a lot of other His location matches. Yeah. Justin, final thirty seconds to you. What do you want people to take away from what we believe is a misleading headline from the Daily Mail? Speaker 2: Yeah. I want people to take away the fact that, again, ballistic science is very inexact at best, and you're dealing with a lot of people on the internet who have no knowledge of it whatsoever. And so it's very easy to, even in court cases, it's very easy to confuse a jury. You know, they discussed ammunition in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial and a lot of the information that they presented was false on both sides actually. So this is not an exact science. This is not something that you can draw 100% conclusions about. This is but one piece of evidence among many, and I wish people would just take a breath and relax. Speaker 0: Justin, thank you for joining us.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - March 22, 2026 at 6:43 AM

Saved - March 22, 2026 at 2:59 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I report Massie’s claim on Tucker Carlson that every Republican except him has an AIPAC handler in their district—personal cell, lunches, and votes guided by a foreign power. He says many take all-expense trips to Israel funded by the lobby, an indoctrination. Israel is the only country with such a uniform system. We elect to represent WE THE PEOPLE, not answer to babysitters. It’s time to fire them and put America first.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨EXPOSED: Every REPUBLICAN Member of Congress—Has An Assigned AIPAC Babysitter?!😤 CONGRESSMAN Thomas Massie just revealed on @TCNetwork that every Republican member of Congress—except him, has an assigned AIPAC Babysitter? 📉🕵️‍♂️ THE SHOCKING REVELATIONS: Massie reveals that his colleagues literally have "handlers" embedded in their districts. They have the Congressman's personal cell number, they do lunch, and they ensure every vote aligns with a foreign government’s spreadsheet. Massie exposes the cowardice on the House floor. Republicans come to him and whisper, "You're making the right vote, but I'd take too much flack back home from my AIPAC person if I joined you." * The All-Expense-Paid Trips: Almost every member takes the "vacationy" trip to Israel for themselves and their spouses, paid for by the lobby. It’s not just a visit; it’s an indoctrination. As Massie points out, there isn't a "Britain guy," a "Germany dude," or a "Russia person" assigned to every member. Israel is the only country that has a uniform, matched-up system to ensure our representatives take orders from a foreign power. We elect people to represent WE THE PEOPLE, not to check in with a foreign lobbyist before they cast a vote. If our leaders are more afraid of their "AIPAC babysitter" than they are of their own constituents, then our sovereignty has already been sold. This is exactly why the USS Liberty is never talked about. This is why our borders stay open while we fund the borders of others. It’s time to fire the babysitters and get back to AMERICA FIRST. 🇺🇸⚓️ FOLLOW @TuckerCarlson and @RepThomasMassie

Video Transcript AI Summary

Speaker 0 explains that not all Republicans are registered with APAC, and that many colleagues would vote with him if not for political backlash back home. He says some Republicans tell him, “that’s wrong what APAC is doing to you,” and they want to talk to their APAC person. He notes that nearly everyone except him has an APAC person, which he likens to a babysitter who is always talking to you for APAC. When these members are in DC, they lunch with their APAC contacts, who have their cell numbers and keep conversations going. He mentions that four members of Congress have said they’ll talk to their APAC person to try to get ads dialed back. He questions why this isn’t more widely known, arguing that it benefits nobody for constituents to know they have a “buddy system with somebody who represents a foreign country.” Speaker 1 asks what APAC is, and Speaker 0 explains the concept further, noting that the APAC person is connected to the congressman and that this dynamic exists on the Republican side. He says the APAC person is embedded in the caucus presence, and that conversations with them occur when members come to DC. He remarks that this arrangement is not beneficial for public disclosure, so members don’t tell their constituents about it. Speaker 1 asks if any other country does anything similar. Speaker 0 responds emphatically that they do not: “Not only do they not have a Putin guy. Look. They don’t they they don’t have a Britain guy. They don’t have an Australian guy. They don’t have a Germany dude.” He asserts that APAC is the only country with someone who uniformly matches a congressman to an APAC contact, and that there is likely a spreadsheet at APAC mapping the APAC contact to the congressman’s votes on issues. He adds that APAC pays for trips for congressmen and their spouses to go to Israel; he notes he may not be the only Republican who hasn’t taken the APAC Israel trip, but he’s among a minority who hasn’t yet. Speaker 1 asks about the trip, and Speaker 0 describes it as “vacationy,” including visits to the Western Wall and other sites, and mentions swimming in the Dead Sea. Speaker 1 comments that Israel is a great country and that Jerusalem is wonderful, but clarifies that this appreciation is distinct from the government of Israel and its politics. Speaker 0 agrees that Israelis are entrepreneurial and publicly minded, and Speaker 1 shares a personal fondness for Israel, praising the country and its people, while noting the difference between the people and the government. Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss their affection for Israel, with Speaker 1 distinguishing his personal love of the place from political influence, and both agreeing that Israel is a special place, with Speaker 0 emphasizing the distinction between people and government.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: They're not registered. Speaker 1: Is is there any other Republican who has your views on this? Speaker 0: Well, I have Republicans who come to me on the floor and say, I wish I could vote with you today. Yours is the right vote, but I would just take too much flack back home. And I have Republicans who come to me and say, that's wrong what APAC is doing to you. Let me talk to my APAC person. By the way, everybody but me has an APAC person. Speaker 1: What does that mean an APAC person? Speaker 0: It's like your babysitter. Your APAC babysitter who, is always talking to you for APAC. They're probably a constituent in your district, but they are, you know, firmly embedded in APAC. And Speaker 1: Every member has something like this? Speaker 0: Every I don't know how it works on the democrat side, but that's how it works on the republican side. And when they and when they come to DC, you go have lunch with them. And they've got your cell number, and you have conversations with them. So I've had, like That's absolutely crazy. I've had four members of congress say, I'll talk to my APAC person. And it's clearly what we call them, my APAC guy. I'll talk to my APAC guy and see if I can get them to, you know, dial those ads back. Speaker 1: Why have I never heard this before? Speaker 0: It doesn't benefit anybody. Why would they wanna tell their constituents that they've basically got a buddy system with somebody who's representing a foreign country? It it doesn't benefit the congressman for people to know that, so they're not gonna tell you that. Speaker 1: It's it's in have you seen any other country do anything like this? Like No. Russia Russia obviously determines the outcome of our elections. We keep hearing that. Does anyone have a Putin guy that they talk to? Speaker 0: Not only do they not have a Putin guy. Look. They don't they they don't have a Britain guy. They don't have an Australian guy. They, you know, they don't have a Germany dude. Like, it's the only country that does this, that has somebody that, like, uniformly I guarantee there's some spreadsheet at APAC where where, you know, the the APAC dude is who's matched up with the congressman is there, and then all the congressman's votes on the issue. Oh, has the congressman been to Israel? They they pay for trips for congressmen and their spouses to go to Israel. I may be I mean, I don't I I'm not the only Republican who hasn't taken the APAC trip to Israel, but I'm probably one of a dozen that hasn't taken that trip. And the other ones just haven't got around to it. What's the trip like? Do you know? It's kind of like, I think, vacationy. You go see the wall. You go see the, you know, the sites, things like that. It's such a great Speaker 1: I must say, it's such a great country. Jerusalem, especially, is just such a wonderful place that that's gotta have Speaker 0: a big effect. You go, like, swim in the Dead Sea. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. I've done that. Yeah. Not on an APAC trip, but I would recommend it to anybody. Speaker 0: Are sure it wasn't APAC trip? Speaker 1: Paid for it myself. No. I mean, it's it's just funny. I mean, I am a, like, a legit lover of Israel, of the place Israel. I like the people, and I love the food, and, like, the whole thing is so great. Speaker 0: Look. They had they've Speaker 1: But that's distinct from the government of Israel, which is just Speaker 0: a foreign government. My my sense is the people are are very entrepreneurial. Yeah. Nolly. They're, publicly minded. You know? They care about their country, that that they're generally good people. Right? Speaker 1: That's certainly been my experience in trips there for sure. It's great. It's just that's I mean, I think it's probably one of my favorite maybe my all time favorite place to go, with my family, but that's just a completely different thing from taking orders from its government.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - March 4, 2026 at 9:35 AM

Saved - March 4, 2026 at 2:57 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I say the mainstream media, defense contractors, and the establishment are lying about the Middle East. Former Col. Douglas Macgregor claims Iran is succeeding while Russia and China feed Iran intel. He says all our bases and harbor installations are destroyed and the U.S. Navy must retreat to Indian ports. He warns we’re entering a long, unwinnable war and that anti-war voices were silenced, as Charlie Kirk warned.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨BREAKING: Trump Is LYING To You — All Of Our Bases Have Been DESTROYED, Says Former U.S. ARMY Colonel Douglas Macgregor😱 The mainstream media, the defense contractors, and the establishment are LYING to you about what is actually happening in the Middle East right now. While the hijacked, pro-war neo-cons try to sell the America First base on a glorious, easy war with Iran, Former U.S. Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor just went on the record and completely shattered the illusion. It is a disaster, and Iran is doing way better then we thought. Here is the terrifying reality of what is happening on the ground while the politicians lie to your face.👇 We aren't just fighting Iran. Macgregor confirms that Russia and China are sitting on the sidelines feeding top-tier satellite intelligence directly to the Iranian government. They are tracking our every move. Because of this intelligence pipeline, Macgregor states Iran is experiencing "tremendous successes" against Israel and U.S. positions. His exact, chilling words: "All of our bases have been destroyed. Our harbor installations are destroyed." Our regional footprint is collapsing so fast that the U.S. Navy is being forced to fall back on Indian ports just to survive. This is the catastrophic, here we are entering into a long protracted and unwinnable Middle Eastern war that Charlie Kirk warned us about and spent his final months of his life trying to stop. He publicly begged the Trump administration to back off from a larger strike on Iran. And now? The military-industrial complex are cheerleading a slaughter while our service members are sitting ducks. They silenced the loudest anti-war voice in the country, and now the exact disaster he warned us about is unfolding. Tag @RealCandaceO and RT, It's time to wake up and smell the roses. (even if they smell like an outhouse)

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - February 20, 2026 at 12:18 PM

Saved - February 20, 2026 at 2:27 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I’m reporting that the DOJ secretly deleted roughly 500k files in Dataset 10 overnight, wiping damning material. It allegedly removed Howard Lutnick’s FBI files, Epstein–Bannon–WEF meetings, Epstein’s Skype messages with supermodels aiding recruitment, Epstein’s gonorrhea, Epstein advising UN picks, and a claim he was a CIA double agent. They erased after page EFTA01610000, but I saved what I saw. FOIA denial cited. WaPo link in the comments. This is described as the biggest document scrub.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 BREAKING: DOJ Just SECRETLY DELETED Half A Million EPSTEIN Files OVERNIGHT — While We We're LITERALLY Looking At Them!! 😱💥 They wiped roughly 500k files in Dataset 10 clean. Gone. The most damning evidence of elite corruption and criminal activity… vanished in the middle of the night. This included: • Howard Lutnick’s full FBI investigation files (that mysteriously got dropped) • Leon Black + Epstein meeting with Steve Bannon and WEF President Børge Brende • Epstein’s Skype messages with supermodels helping recruit underage girls — some directly from Naomi Campbell • Epstein catching gonorrhea and still advising Steve Bannon • Epstein helping pick UN representatives for entire countries • Proof Epstein was a CIA double agent from the very beginning All of it was buried deep in Dataset 10 — after page EFTA01610000 (3,000+ pages in). The second you hit the text messages… BOOM. Pure gold. And now it’s all erased. But we saved EVERYTHING we saw. They can’t delete what’s already out there. They’re panicking. They denied the FOIA request for Epstein’s own lawyer and the administration is clearly desperate to bury this forever. Link to the WaPo story exposing the CIA/NSA cover-up posted down in the comments below. 👇 This is the biggest document scrub we’ve ever seen. RT if you want the full files to go viral before they disappear forever 🔥 Tag everyone. Save & share the screenshots. Credit to my bro @ZREIKMIESTER for catching them redhanded. FOLLOW Him!

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨UPDATE: Here's The Latest On My Dads Condition.💔🧑‍⚕️ To everyone who has reached out asking how to help with my dad's medical emergency: I listened to your advice and started a fundraiser. If you are able to support us during this difficult time, you can do so here: Thank you all and God Bless.🙏 spot.fund/c9fbtkjst

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

Link to the WaPo story exposing the CIA/NSA cover-up https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/02/08/jeffrey-epstein-cia-nsa-records-requests-foia/

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - January 11, 2026 at 3:59 PM

Saved - January 11, 2026 at 7:54 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I’m reporting that the allegations against Jake Hoffman and Tyler Bowyer aren’t new: in 2022, $2.1M from SPH Medical LLC funded Kari Lake ads via Hoffman's firm 1Ten, with shell entities and donor masking. GOP watchdogs urged prosecution; AZ authorities did nothing. In 2024 they allegedly double down with Turning Point USA, still using shell funds and hidden payments. I demand a full investigation into Kris Mayes and regulators.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 EXPOSED: Jake Hoffman & Tyler Bowyer's Fraud Scheme Has Been RUNNING FOR YEARS – Reported in 2022 for $2M Kari Lake Kickbacks, But AZ AG Did NOTHING!💰 The "new" fraud allegations hitting Jake Hoffman and Tyler Bowyer? They've been old news – and AZ officials let it slide! Back in 2022: Hoffman's "Put Arizona First" PAC funneled a whopping $2.1 MILLION into Kari Lake's campaign ads... all from a bogus "SPH Medical LLC", which is a shell company tied to the sameJake Hoffman/ Tyler Bowyer UPS mailbox in Phoenix – no real entity exists!). Hired Hoffman's own firm (1Ten) for the work – classic illegal kickbacks & money laundering to hide donors. GOP watchdogs (like Public Integrity Alliance) raised MASSIVE red flags, filed complaints with AZ Secretary of State & AG – calling it donor masking via "corporate artifice." Forwarded for prosecution... and CRICKETS. No action. Why? Fast-forward to 2024: They're DOUBLING DOWN – same playbook with Turning Point USA. Shell companies, hidden funds, pocketing cash through fraud. This isn't coincidence – it's a protected racket! BIG QUESTIONS: How do Hoffman & Bowyer KEEP operating this clear money laundering & kickback scheme? Has AZ AG Kris Mayes been BRIBED, BLACKMAILED, or GETTING KICKBACKS herself to look the other way? We DEMAND a FULL INVESTIGATION – pressure the AG & regulators NOW! Watch these 3 eye-opening videos for the full picture on their long-running scam: The corruption runs DEEP – share if you're ready to expose it all! Who's protecting them? Time for accountability! RT & tag @RealCandaceO & @AZAGMayes – Investigate NOW! 🇺🇸

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨HOLY SHIT: Tyler Boyer Was Previously PARDONED By President TRUMP!😱 President Trump pardoned Tyler Boyer for crimes related to voter fraud and vulnerabilities in the 2020 election—part of a massive wave of clemency for patriots targeted by the deep state. Wow. But hold up... this guy's got *major* baggage. Allegedly, here's why so many suspect Tyler Boyer conspired to take out Charlie Kirk: - As TPUSA's shady COO and a long-time political operative (rumored "gay little Mormon"), he hand-picked *every* key staffer around Kirk, giving him total control. - @RealCandaceO straight-up called him out as one of Kirk's "handlers"—allegedly sabotaging alliances (like hers) to isolate Charlie and consolidate power. - Inconsistencies galore: TPUSA's and the FBI’s stories about the Utah event don't add up, and how was the UVU stop locked in only months prior when it normally takes 6 months to a year to plan these events. Almost as if to set the stage for the hit on Charlie ? - Motive? Kirk's death handed Bowyer the reins to a multimillion-dollar empire—cozy timing for a "best friend" who's now refuting "wicked" conspiracies left and right. Not to mention just before Charlie’s death he noticed TPUSA’s financial’s looked funny and that money seemed to be disappearing too quickly, so he ordered a DOGE Style audit of TPUSA’s Books. Tyler if involved in an embezzlement, fraud scheme and cooking the books would be freaking out because once that DOGE AUDIT happened and Charlie found out who was stealing from him it most certainly would mean Prison time for Boyer if involved. This blows my mind that Tyler Bowyer was actually Pardoned by Trump. Who made that deal? How much was Trump paid to pardon Boyer or what was Trump expecting in return for the pardon? We all know you don’t just get a Presidential PARDON -“No Strings Attached”. Drop your Thoughts, Questions, Commentd below and lets Discuss. 🔥

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - January 3, 2026 at 5:23 AM

Saved - January 3, 2026 at 8:11 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I describe Gary Melton as a fed op who feigns brotherhood with Mitch Snow, extracting details about Fort Huachuca and then discrediting him to shield a narrative. Mitch, a combat vet, speaks sincerely, seeking justice for Charlie Kirk. The takedown uses fake rapport and smear tactics to undermine Candace Owens’ probe. Mitch recorded it; Stew Peters’ compilation exposes the betrayal. Vets deserve truth and accountability.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨PROOF DROPS: Gary Melton (@paramounttactcl) EXPOSED as FED OP in 115-Min Call – Builds Trust with Mitch Snow, Then STABS Him in the Back to Protect the Narrative! 🤯 Listen to this slimy takedown: Gary – ex-Green Beret turned federal LE instructor – calls combat vet Mitch Snow all "brotherly," acting supportive, coaxing out EVERY detail on Fort Huachuca sightings the night before Charlie's hit. One thing shines through brighter than anything: Mitch Snow is the real deal – raw, sincere, and painfully earnest. This is a combat vet, a retired Army Staff Sergeant who's seen the worst of war, reaching out in good faith for that lost brotherhood. His voice cracks with nostalgia when he talks about missing the SF camaraderie. He opens up – vulnerably, honestly – sharing details he believes will help uncover truth for a fallen brother, Charlie Kirk. No grandstanding. No ego. Just a man who saw something that didn't sit right, felt duty-bound to speak, and trusted a "fellow warrior" to have his back. That's sincerity you can't fake: the pauses when emotions hit, the straightforward answers, the willingness to clarify without defensiveness. Mitch isn't chasing clout – he's chasing justice, quietly, steadily, like the soldier he is. Mitch, missing that SF bond, trusts him. Opens up fully. Gary's real mission? Extract intel, twist it, then go PUBLIC smashing Mitch as a "pathological liar" on his channel – all to discredit testimony that torches the official story & backs @RealCandaceO's probe. Low-down dirty FED tactics 101: ▫️Fake rapport like a pro handler ▫️Milk the source dry ▫️Flip & destroy credibility overnight The contrast is devastating. One man embodies honor and loyalty. The other? Calculated betrayal – the kind that erodes trust in the entire patriot community. Mitch's authenticity doesn't just hold up – it elevates his testimony and exposes the desperation behind the attacks on him.Real recognizes real. And Mitch Snow is as real as they come. This ain't warrior code. This is informant scum – sent to smear vets & silence Candace by ANY means. Mitch recorded it ALL. Undeniable in @realstewpeters' bombshell compilation. Be sure to FOLLOW Stew! Hear the two-faced betrayal yourself. This is how they protect the powerful & bury truth. Vets deserve better. Patriots deserve answers. Share if you're DONE with fed games!

Video Transcript AI Summary

Gary Melton (Gary) and Mitch have a lengthy, meandering exchange that centers on veterans’ histories, alleged government manipulation, personal trauma, and the pursuit of truth around high-profile political cases. The core thread is an effort to verify Mitch’s claims about his SF background and to explore broader claims about political interference, media narratives, and potential conspiracies. Key points and exchanges: - Identity, background, and verification: - Gary identifies himself as a former SF soldier seeking to verify Mitch’s SF history after seeing his Candace Owens interview. - Mitch provides his SF timeline: he was in group from February/March 1993 until November 1996; MOS 18 Charlie (medic). He mentions attending the 300F1 course and a severe on-duty accident at Guadalupe River, involving a 60-foot fall that caused multiple injuries (spine, feet, knee, lumbar, dislocations, torn labrum, etc.). - Mitch describes his treatment (brace, three-week leave, then recycled into the next class and internship at Brookhaven Army Medical Center Burn Ward). He mentions ODA +1 63166/ +1 63/ +1 66 and places himself on +183 and +185 in the old numbering system; later, he notes the transition to the newer numeric system circa 2002-2006. - Gary asks for Mitch’s DD214 to verify the story; Mitch agrees and offers to share it. He references being in “Lake Baja” and knowing Nate (Nate Chapman), whom he spoke with the day before. - Personal stakes, trauma, and family: - Mitch explains a long, difficult divorce and custody battle that spanned many years. He says he was a stay-at-home dad for his son, who is now 13, and describes persistent, aggressive accusations against him (PTSD, abuse, murder) by courts and media figures. - He recounts a prior incident involving a coworker or classmate, Jimmy Walker, and notes that Walker later claimed PTSD and discrimination in SF contexts. Mitch frames this as part of broader patterns of how SF status can be weaponized in custody and legal battles. - Mitch and Gary discuss how the SF environment can foster suspicion, paranoia, and intra-community politics (e.g., clashes with SF Brothers, admin actions, and the difficulty of maintaining contact with peers after leaving the teams). - Candace Owens, TPUSA, and broader conspiratorial discussions: - The callers discuss Candace Owens’ involvement, the TPUSA circle, and the believability of various claims. Mitch says he has wanted to vet the claims through Candace and Joe Kent, and he’s offered to supply documents to verify stories. He notes that Candace has reportedly pulled threads about various shooters and narratives and that this has caused friction with TPUSA. - Mitch argues that Candace might be exploited by political or foreign adversaries and that her narratives sometimes lack corroborating evidence, distracting from “the truth.” He insists on corroborating Mitch’s own story with documents (DD214, other records) before airing anything publicly. - Gary responds with skepticism about online personas but agrees to vet Mitch’s materials, emphasizing integrity and a desire to verify truth. Both acknowledge the risk of backend manipulation, bot attacks, and the use of media figures to push narratives. - Ballistics and the Charlie Kirk incident: - A substantial portion of the discussion turns to ballistics surrounding Tyler Robinson and the Charlie Kirk incident. Mitch (the ballistics expert) explains that many variables affect ballistic outcomes (ammo type, grain, bullet construction, handloads vs. factory ammo, barrel condition, yaw, stabilization). He argues that the 30-06 round’s behavior can be highly variable and that an “atypical” (non-normative) wound could occur for many reasons. - He compares Martin Luther King’s assassination (65-yard shot, 30-06, open casket) to Charlie Kirk’s wound, noting similarities in the trajectory and lack of an exit wound in some high-profile cases. He cites Chuck Ritter (Green Beret) who was shot multiple times with 7.62x54R and survived, and uses these examples to illustrate the complexity of interpreting ballistic evidence. - Mitch asserts that multiple plausible explanations exist for Kirk’s wounds and stresses that the exact ammunition type, projectile, and ballistic conditions are unknown at present. He emphasizes that investigators possess DNA and surveillance records (DNA on the firearm, trigger, cartridge, towel used by Tyler Robinson) and text messages; he notes that Mitch is not claiming to know the entire truth but wants to see corroborating evidence. - The two discuss the possibility of government involvement or manipulation, while acknowledging that ballistics alone cannot prove a broader conspiracy. They note the challenges of obtaining complete ballistic data before trials, and they express openness to future verification once more information becomes available (e.g., during trial proceedings). - Custody, investigations, and accountability: - Mitch recounts the broader pattern of SF members being targeted by legal systems when in contentious custody situations, with accusations and judgments influenced by SF status. He cites examples of coercion, character assassination, and the weaponization of families in court battles. - They discuss how the FBI and other agencies have handled high-profile cases, noting distrust in narratives presented by authorities and media. They acknowledge that public transparency is essential, even as prosecutions proceed. - Platform, vetting, and next steps: - The two plan to continue the vetting process: Mitch will provide DD214 and related documents to Gary, who promises to verify and not disclose sensitive information without Mitch’s consent. They discuss sending further documents via email or text (Gary’s Paramount Tactical contact). - Mitch expresses a desire to appear on Gary’s show and to connect with Nate (Nate Chapman) for collaborative vetting. Gary commits to facilitating, offering to act as an advocate if Mitch’s story is verified and to help set up communications with Nate and Candace as appropriate. - The conversation closes with both agreeing on the importance of truth, corroboration, and accountability. They acknowledge the risk and the emotional toll of revealing sensitive histories but emphasize their commitment to pursuing the truth and preventing misinformation or manipulation. Overall, the transcript captures a tense, exploratory exchange between two veterans and affiliates about verifying SF credentials, the personal toll of custody and legal battles, the influence of political narratives, and the complexities of ballistics and forensics in high-profile incidents. The participants stress verification through documents, corroboration of anecdotes, and cautious, integrity-driven engagement with media figures and audiences.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Yeah. Hi. Is this Mitch? Yeah. Who's this? Mitch, this is Gary Melton. How are you? Speaker 1: Gary who? Speaker 0: My name is Gary Melton. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 0: What's going on, man? Yeah. So I'm a former first group guys. I saw your interview with Candice, and I just had a few questions for you. Speaker 1: You do? Okay. Are we being hurt or anything? Are we being let me let me jump in my car here. Talk to mister Valhalla. He had some ideas. Well and who are you again? Your nick Nate? Gary. Sorry. Nelson? Speaker 0: Just a second. Melton, m e l t o n. Speaker 1: Okay. Gary Melton. Alright. What kind of questions you got for me? Speaker 0: Well, I I'd like to know a little bit more about I'd like to know little bit more about your history. You you're you're kinda saying that you're, you know, a former SF guy. Yeah. When did you go to the Q course? Oh, back in nineteen nineteen ninety one. I can get you the class date probably in a few. Okay. Would it be possible for you to look. I if your story checks out, I'm all about it, man. I don't want to you know, I'm not here to do you dirty or anything like that, but, you know, obviously, we have a regiment, and, you know, we take that stuff very seriously. Uh-huh. Would it be possible for you to send me your DD two fourteen? Speaker 1: Sure. You the only thing you haven't done is tell me you haven't told me who you're with. Speaker 0: Oh, so I'm with well, I mean, basically, Lake Baja, I have a DD two a fair amount of time. So I know Nate I just talked to Nate yesterday, as matter of fact. Speaker 1: Yeah. He's a good guy, by the way. You know what? Yeah. I'm a fan of his. Speaker 0: I we're we're great we're good friends. And yeah. You know? Okay. I see I I see yeah. So, you know, if you could send me your DDQ 14, you know, then we can verify your story, and we can get to the bottom of we all want the truth. Sure. And, you know, that's that's what it's all about. Is that too? Yeah. Yeah. That's actually what that's what we're all trying to do. Did it just How long were you at group? How Speaker 2: long were you at group? Sorry. The phone's switching to Bluetooth. Speaker 1: We're switching to Bluetooth here for give it a minute for the fight for the Bluetooth here. Don't worry. Speaker 2: Oh, there it goes. Speaker 1: Alright. How long was I in group? Speaker 0: Yes, sir. Speaker 1: From '93 was it March? I wanna say February, March '93 until November '9 fifteen November nineteen ninety six. Speaker 0: You said I'll just say it one more time Speaker 2: for February and March. Speaker 1: February and March '3. Speaker 0: '93 until fifteen November ninety six. Speaker 2: '96. Speaker 0: And what was your what was your MOS? Eighteen Charlie. Eighteen Charlie. Now I know in some or in some of the other documents and stuff, you you were said you were a medic as well? I went through the 300 f one course. Broke my back there Speaker 1: down in Fort Sam Houston. Speaker 0: It was just something stupid. You know? Sergeant Dagnon. You can probably look him up on SF Brothers. He's a he's a no. He's a good guy, but also I think everyone of us are assholes. Yeah. Now he I was just one of the young guys that he convinced to go up to I was known for going up to Guadalupe Guadalupe River between Fort Sam and or between San Antonio and and Austin. Great place to go vacation. Yeah. All that stuff. In the summertime, they do they float down the river, and the girls show us all their tits and stuff. It's it's fun time. Speaker 1: I was calling I was young, honey. I know. I know. I get it. I'm a guy. You know? You like that part? So look. No. Speaker 0: Was known for going up there and he's we were running into a problem with qualifying guys, getting them their jumps in for hazardous duty pay. He knew I was going up there. So, yeah, I I took the route he told me, but we didn't, you know, count on the fact that that winter there had been a what do you call this thing? A sinkhole that developed there. And it paved away at the little cliff, and I ended up falling, like, 60 feet. I broke my everything. Broke my Speaker 1: all the tarsals in my Speaker 0: feet, calcaneus, both calcaneuses, left kneecap shredded in half. I had to squeeze that back on. Lower lumbar, first, second, and third lumbar. On, we found out that I also had broken my Speaker 1: what was it? C c five and six. Complete dislocation of left arm, torn labrum. You know, it it yeah. You're lucky you're Speaker 0: lucky you're you're not only lucky that you are alive, you're lucky you can still even walk. Yeah. It was a yeah. That's a god thing. Uh-huh. There was a colonel Speaker 1: hold on. I remember his name. He's a good guy. Speaker 0: Starts with Colonel Firth. He was in charge of the 300 f one course back then. Speaker 1: And he wanted me to get go right back into the course because they couldn't recycle people back then. We didn't have enough slots. Speaker 0: And, yeah, I had that was, like, the first Speaker 1: time I ever stopped for myself, and I said, look, people. I'm broken head to toe. I need some time off. I told my Sure. I have Speaker 0: to go home for a little bit, and Speaker 1: I took a I think I took three weeks. I went home and climbed mountains. I'm an idiot. But, yeah, they put me in a brace. I Speaker 0: came back, and I had to get recycled Speaker 1: into the next class, but it wouldn't they wouldn't be able to Speaker 0: get me in for, like, oh, I Speaker 1: don't know, a year or so. Speaker 0: But I was right at the point Speaker 1: of starting the internship, and then that's right before they sent me back to Bragg for GOAT Lab. So I pretty Speaker 0: much had I did the internship at the Brookhavenry Speaker 1: Medical Center Burn Ward. Yeah. So I was in the middle of that when all this happened. Speaker 0: So did did you ever did you ever go to an ODA? Speaker 1: Yeah. ODA +1 63166. Yeah. I'm sorry. +1 63? +1 63. Uh-huh. And +1 66. Speaker 2: +1 66. Speaker 0: So you were a first crew? Speaker 1: Yeah. Yep. Speaker 0: Oh, okay. Gotcha. Yeah. So what was that? Yeah. I was at I was on +1 83, +1 85. Speaker 1: Oh, so you're an old dog too because you got the old numbers. Speaker 0: Alright. Yeah. Yeah. I actually when I got there, I'm not I got there we actually switched to +1 323, and so I was I was there I got there 2006. Oh, you got there? Speaker 1: So they were That's actually a little bit were they still doing because I thought they switched the numbers up didn't they do that around 2000 or so? Speaker 0: No. No. No. It was 02/2006, 2007 that they went to the new numeric system. Speaker 1: Yeah. I haven't been able to figure out the numeric whatever system. I somebody tried to explain it to me before and I I don't know. Okay. Speaker 0: Well, it used to be obviously, you know, first group, sixth company, thirteen. Right? And now it's first so it's first like, for one eight three instead of being one first group, eighth company, thirteen. It is first group So forgive Speaker 1: me, because you've you've Speaker 0: already lost me, sir. Third battalion. Okay. Third battalion. Third battalion, second company, third team. So they they just they just added the the battalion in there is really what what it is. So it's it's just simplifies a little bit. Speaker 1: I'm just Speaker 0: gonna keep driving It is confusing. Speaker 1: We'll we'll keep driving around while we got you on the car thing here. Speaker 2: I got you hooked. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Bluetooth. I'll get you documents. Not a problem. Speaker 2: I got What do you wanna send to? Speaker 1: We got Speaker 2: all the documents. What do you want? Send sent. Speaker 1: Hold on. Speaker 0: It's Gary@ParamountTactical.com. Speaker 1: Gary at Paramount Speaker 0: I'll text them to you. Speaker 2: Yeah. Okay. Perfect. I'll text them. Speaker 1: No offense. I'm gonna go ahead and do my own lookup on YouTube because I don't know. You sound suspect. You know? I I Speaker 2: We gotta mark her back too. Speaker 1: Know I'll be calling you private stuff here on my own YouTube channel here soon. If you get if Speaker 2: you been do popping popcorn. Okay. Speaker 1: Sir, I we're talking here and I know why you're calling me and stuff. And it it we I try to I really have to laugh stuff off because I've been through some hella shit. I've been trying to warn our boy boys for it for a long while. But, you know, and I laugh and joke a lot because That's how get through. Speaker 0: It's just fucking ridiculous. But, Speaker 1: yeah, if you tell Nate no. I've been a fan. I actually tried to get on the show. I I paid money to try and give him the tip. Speaker 2: Super chance. Yeah. Speaker 1: That I had. I wanted him to vet me. Okay? You tell him that. I wanted to go through him. Period. Because, you know, we we both know. Speaker 0: Well, I you know, I'm sure I'll talk to Nate even today, but, you know, you're definitely I think he has an invite for you to come on his show, and you definitely have an invite to come on my show. So Speaker 1: Wow. I I'm getting invited. We Hold on, honey. Speaker 0: We love to feast we love to feast for you. And Thank you. Look. If if your story is is true Yeah. You know, this is doing due diligence. Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. There's people out there. I've I've only got, like, half the nation in TP USA now trying to search me down and kill me and pick up all my dirty records and dirty laundry. Yeah. No. It's yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. No. The I I only know I never meant for things to blow up like this. No. It was just a tip Yeah. That I I was just trying to get. Speaker 2: To candle like Speaker 1: Things just weighed on my Speaker 0: heart. Mhmm. Speaker 2: We tried to get to Valhalla, and then we were talking to a friend. I mean, you heard Speaker 1: the story. Here. She's a cute little girl. Yeah. She has her own great story. Speaker 2: Like a go getter. She's Speaker 1: like cheerleader. What I had to say, and I just mentioned to her. I was like, yeah. We were we were trying to go through halla and stuff and and, you know, we got blown off, whatever. It's really hard to get through to these people because Speaker 2: Everybody's busy. Speaker 0: Yeah. Everybody's got an ego. Speaker 2: Well, everybody's inundated. Speaker 0: Well, and and and just like, Speaker 2: you know The volume. Speaker 0: Hey. How you do get through full And the volume. Speaker 1: Yeah. The volume of 4,000,000 stories. Speaker 2: How do Speaker 1: you get through that? Speaker 0: I mean, Speaker 2: you can't it's like luck. Yeah. I just Speaker 1: No problem. We've had the same problem with the FBI. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: Everything works. Yeah. I yeah. We mentioned it to her, and she's just all like, I've got a I've got a word with Candice. I I'm gonna message her right now on Instagram and write her Speaker 2: an email. And was like I looked at you like, oh. Speaker 1: You look at you like, uh-huh. I'm like, yeah. Sure. Okay. That's precious, Marcy. Go for it. You do that. Speaker 0: And before we got off Speaker 1: the call, Candace Owens was calling me. Yep. I'm like, what the heck you got? Yep. Kidding me. But no, I tried to tell Candace, you don't wanna you don't want my story. It's been a it's been a crazy long saga as to why I was at Fort Huachuca. And, yeah, it's, she kept pulling that thread. She wanted the vet. So I've gone through this with her. Went through this with who was it? Joe Kent. Yeah. Speaker 0: Great guy, by the way. He's very busy. And, Speaker 1: yeah, I've sent him all the records, all that kind of I'll send them to you. Can you do me one favor? Just the guys around here, there's some vets around here. I've had real problem with them. I give them records. Next Speaker 0: thing Speaker 1: you know, things get propagated. People copy stuff off. That's been one of the problems I've had around here with vets. I I'm not real Yeah. I should say Four point lot of the pets around here. Speaker 2: Right. I mean, don't trust people with documents. Speaker 0: Here's here's here's what I'll tell you, man. Listen. I I think there's nothing more important than integrity. Speaker 1: Uh-huh. And if you send Speaker 0: me any records, number one, I will look. I I have a good reputation in in the SF community and and online and everywhere else. What I'm not gonna do is I'm I'm not gonna send your records to anybody. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 0: Appreciate I'll I'll say that. I will I will confirm or deny your records verbally. I'm not here to smear you. I'm not here to, you know, mess with you or anything like that. I wanna know if the story is true. Yeah. That's really what it comes down to. And and I'm gonna send you I'm gonna send you my personal contact information right now. And if you need anything from me beyond this, and like I said, I'd love to have you on the show. Okay. Let's and, you know, let's let's let's get to the let's get to the truth. Speaker 1: Yeah. Simple as that. Speaker 2: Sounds great. Speaker 1: And and I haven't had lot of luck because matter of fact, those guys in SF Brothers, I helped start that. I'm one of the people that helped at the beginnings of SF Brothers and Facebook and stuff. I'm one of the first 100 that got onto there. And to put that together for guys because, you know, I don't you probably remember since you were there earlier. If you got out prior to, like, 2006, you went out into a black abyss. You got cut off. I mean, every it was hard enough to keep track of guys that you knew that were on the teams right across the hall from you because everybody's But on such a then all of a sudden, you're outside of group. People move, people change orders, people within a year now you're sort of cut off. Speaker 0: Lose contact with everybody. Speaker 1: So the whole Facebook thing actually ended up being a good you know place for everybody to sort of meet up after. Yeah. And that's where, oh what was his name? He died a few years ago the guy who started it. Really good guy, still got him on the friends list I don't remember it. But, Thomas Drinkard, some of the old guys there, yeah, we put it together. They wanted me to be the admin at first, and I said, no. Heck. No. Because I prior to that, I had worked for Microsoft, and I gave him hints and whatnot, I was real glad when Bill Olsen stepped up and take it over. But, he he turned out to when things went bad for me, like, two years ago, oh, I can tell you those guys did not Speaker 0: What what happened two years ago? Is that was that with your custody battle and Mhmm. Everything going on with your your son? Mhmm. Speaker 1: For Yeah. I had been trying to get divorced for ten years. Speaker 0: Wow. Speaker 1: Yeah. They finally let me I've Speaker 0: been there. Speaker 1: You went through a ten year divorce? Speaker 0: Not not ten years, but I've been I went through a really, really bad divorce. Put it Speaker 2: that way. Speaker 0: It wasn't ten years, but Mhmm. Kids were involved and and, you know, I was on deployments and she was trying to keep the kids from me. So I can at least to some degree. Speaker 1: I'm one of the guys so I it's been because of my unique history and because I did get targeted by something else that that had been intentionally using this, I don't know, flaw inside of our judicial system. They just took advantage of it. And, you know, I've had I've had a lot of people coerced in my life while I've been going through it. My wife was one and after a lot of events in 2013, she finally, you know, here I was a broken guy. I couldn't defend her. They could do whatever they wanted and, you know, she was deciding to go ahead and flip sides. So I decided for my safety, my son's safety, had to divorce and it was supposed to be reasonable but it became real unreasonable. And Real quick. Allegations started flying. You know because I'm special forces, I must have combat PTSD therefore I'm a wife beating, alcoholic, drug addict, All that. Serial murderer, serial rapist. Pretty much every piece of spaghetti that can be thrown up on the wall has been accused of Speaker 0: me. And Speaker 1: I yeah. I've been fighting through that trying to hold on to custody of my you know, I I helped raise my son. I I have a stay at home dad. I'm but, no, they've done everything they can to criminalize me. And I I noticed long ago that this was a pattern not just with me but across the board. Across the board with SF guys. It pissed me off. Speaker 2: That they used the SF status too. Speaker 1: Drove some guys to suicide. It drove others too. You really gotta wonder if it was suicide. Right. Yeah. It it it I've been trying to bring this raise this issue with several of our brothers, and it just typically goes nowhere. Nobody wants like, do you know who Landon Valentine is? Speaker 0: No. I don't actually. Landon Valentine, who is he? Speaker 1: He was a I wanna say he was an officer in SF but he was in I think fifth group more East Coast but yeah he was in the room. That poor guy got oh, they just murderized him in court for and it was all based upon our SF status, know? That's what they do. Oh, your special forces? Oh, you must be all these other things. I'm not a gun nut. I mean, I don't mind guns. I know how to use them. I probably don't want to be on the other end when I do. But, yeah, I'm not I'm not a big gun nut. I like fishing. I like to take my boy fishing. We like Florida. Speaker 0: Yeah, Florida was nice. Speaker 2: Florida was nice. But Speaker 1: yeah, two years ago, my son came forward to report that he was being abused and that didn't match the narrative of what they were trying to put down on me. He wasn't being abused by me. He was reporting being abused by mom and and she was doing it intentionally. We can we found the medical record. It was she was trying to set me up for a charge of child abuse and she was getting help from the courts from a judge over here, a couple of them. When my son came forward to report her, well, they they snapped back and retaliated. And, eventually, they threw me in jail under allegation. I can't help but laugh, this allegation. Yeah. The allegation that I was either the leader or hiring party of a unidentified biker gang to stage a mass kill event at the courthouse to kill judges. Speaker 0: Jesus. Speaker 1: Yeah. I know. Yeah. Right? That's serious. Mhmm. I can show you the criminal record. It's horrible. It looks terrible. Yeah. The only problem with that is there was no evidence. There's no No probable cause. Just like saying, you know, I'm not a gun nut. Not probably not typical SF guy either. But, Speaker 0: yeah, I don't have a Harley. Speaker 1: I don't ride motorcycles. I don't know anybody. I don't think I've ever spoken to anybody in motorcycle gang ever. Speaker 0: Yeah. I think that, you know, the the whole Hartley thing was big in the even even I think that was kinda the end of the there was a big push in the in in the SF community with, like, almost like these biker gang type things going on within teams Mhmm. In, like, the early two thousands. Yeah. And I think kinda faded out to my generation as well. But and and there was guys that were getting hung up strung up, you know, and he's I don't know. I I guess they thought they were the sons of liberty and SF guys, and that's never a booze, bikes Speaker 1: No kidding. Speaker 0: SF guys. No. There were that leads Speaker 1: me to no mastery. I sort of get that. Yeah. I could sort of see that. Yeah. Okay. I get you. No. If you ever met me, I I walk around in Tommy Bahamas, and I've got a I've got a blue and gold macaw on my on my shoulder. Yep. I walk around like I'm in Florida all the time wearing, hey, dude, you know, red, white, and blue hey dudes. I, I no. Speaker 0: I I'm pretty sure I'd Speaker 1: get my ass kicked if I ever walked into a biker gang. So no. The I I get the allegation. You know, like, the anybody who doesn't really know or or doesn't consider people being individuals Sure. Mhmm. Speaker 0: They're just playing on stereotypes. Yes. Yeah. Right. Speaker 2: Yep. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 0: You know, Speaker 1: and this is all escalated. So they threw me in jail for ninety two days knowing I was innocent. They didn't have any there was no there was no evidence. There's no yeah. Speaker 0: It was fully cooperative. There's no phone calls. Speaker 1: There's no text. There's no pictures. There's no history. I don't have a motorcycle. It was just retaliatory stuff. They had a couple of honeydew girls involved with it to that they had come get involved with it. Those two girls ended up oh, good god. They got into my records. They contacted SFB. They were on call with Bill Olsen. Bill Olson was helping them to try and implicate me to breaking orders and all this other stuff and I finally gave him the big FU inside the room. You know, why are you cooperating with two women that aren't SF? Why are you giving them information about me from anything, you know, from within our supposed, you know, secret group team room? Speaker 0: That was a real violation Speaker 1: to me and I called them out in public for it out out there on the page. And in retaliation, they they the admins decided to kick me out. Yeah. Screw them. Gotta love our buddies sometimes. You know? But, yeah, there was nothing to any of the charges. They were all dropped. That didn't stop them from telling my son that I committed suicide in jail and I'm dead, and therefore, they put him on a protective order. They haven't let me see my son since. And they they're not gonna let me see him until I plead guilty Mhmm. To the allegations. Yeah. Speaker 0: How long how long has Speaker 1: that been Mitch? Two and a half Since you're two? Speaker 2: Two and a half. Wow. Speaker 0: Mhmm. Two and a half years. Wow. How how old is your son? How old is your He's 13. 13. 13? Mhmm. Yeah. That's Speaker 1: I'll give you all the records Yeah. You I know it's unbelievable. It's a crazy story, isn't it? I know. I'm aware. I try to Speaker 0: think No. I mean, I I you know, knowing how knowing how women are and knowing how no offense, Amy. Speaker 2: No. I I take no. Those kind of women are absolutely they give women a bad name. Like, that's what makes me so mad. Like, how can you do this to another person? I mean, I went through a divorce, and I was, like, the complete opposite. I'm you know, I you know? Speaker 0: Well, just way they weaponize Mhmm. The way they weaponize kids against you. Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely. It's so wrong. Yep. Because I yeah. I Speaker 0: And then how the the justice system is set up in the Speaker 1: Mhmm. Speaker 0: Against the the father or the man involved is just Yeah. And I Again, I went I went through a very not quite to that extent, but, know, to where I was getting divorced. And then I was actually in the cue course when I was getting divorced, and then kind of the same thing. It was, like, they were calling my command saying I wasn't paying child support every day. I'd have to go in, like, once a week and show them documents. Look. I've paid every as matter of fact, I was paying more than was requested of me. Wow. Sure. And then on top of Speaker 1: that Let me get my shot. And then Don't know anybody like that. Speaker 0: And then on top of that, you know, when the the divorce finalized, the courts the the judge said, hey. Look. Because he's in the military and, you know, at the time, was deploying constantly to Iraq in Afghanistan. Mhmm. It's like, hey. We're not gonna set up we're not gonna set up, you know, child visitation on a schedule. It's like when he's when he has leave, you're gonna give him the kids. And so when I would get back from deployment and I'd actually they they lived in Texas at the time, so I'd fly to Texas to go Speaker 1: Oh, wow. Speaker 0: To get and and then what she would do is she would hide the kids from me the entire time I was on leave. And when I couldn't find the kids, she'd move them off to, like she'd move them around from and I was traveling, like, trying to go to, like, her family's houses. Everywhere I knew, she'd shovel them around Speaker 1: and hide them from trying to do that. Let me guess. If you did catch him the cops on me. Yep. That's Called cops on me. Saying that you're stalking her Speaker 2: and all this stuff. Even though that was the court order for you to see him on your list. Speaker 1: Yeah. Like, it's a whole scene. Speaker 2: See, that's it's Yeah. Speaker 1: It's Stalker. Hold on. Let me get my shock face. Speaker 2: It's Yeah. Yep. No. Speaker 0: Yep. Speaker 1: No. I haven't played that game at all. I haven't heard that Speaker 2: one. Yep. Speaker 1: Matter of fact, your story is very similar to a I don't wanna say it was lieutenant colonel or colonel. Oh, man. The name is just I'm gonna have to go up to my computer. Wait. You mind staying Speaker 0: I'm bad with names too. Speaker 1: How long do you wanna stay on the phone here? Speaker 0: Yeah. I I got time. Speaker 1: No. We're just Speaker 2: gonna be in the garage real quick. Speaker 0: And and I sent you I just sent you my contact information Okay. Via text with email on there and everything else. Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. No worries. We'll be staying caught here. I'm just you caught us getting coffee and breakfast. Yeah. No. That that just Speaker 0: you know, for better or for worse, it comes with the territory. Speaker 2: It does. Yeah. Speaker 1: I've spent a lot of money, the last twenty five years hiding in plain sight instead of. Okay. So you alright. Explain that to me again. Because you and you you're touching on something. How do you know this? This frustrates me. It takes me getting to this level to finally get somebody who gets it. The government doesn't Speaker 0: The government doesn't want to know that there are our guys that were trained with US tax dollars working for cartels. That is a shit optic story. That they that's that's why that's not gonna be published in the freaking New York time. Do you know what I mean? Speaker 1: Exactly correct. Yeah. And it's also not a Speaker 2: It's not a pretty story. Speaker 1: It's not a pretty story? It's not one you take to the FBI and the FBI goes, oh my gosh, let's check it out. No. They they say, oh, give us the names and everything else like you're doing to me right now. And then the next time they come into the room, they're acting like they're gonna arrest you. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. Like, how dare you even mention this? Yeah. No. I've been through it. My bed, yeah, a couple of times. My Shit Optics store yeah. Shit Optics. That was a good one. It's a good way to take it. Speaker 0: Now that's that's I mean, we we see that time and time again. There's a there's a lot of you know, there there's look. When it comes to I I really believe I mean, I'm sure you're familiar with the assassination attempt on president Trump. Right? Speaker 1: Hell, yeah. Wait. What? When did that happen? Assassination? Seriously? They tried to is that today? Oh my god. He's being fast. Tomorrow, dude. Fuck with you. I don't Yeah. Yeah. Of course. Oh. Yeah. No. Speaker 0: So we got we have we have Thomas Crooks Yeah. That has supposedly zero digital footprint or very minimal digital footprint. So we have, you know, this Speaker 1: Is it possible? Sure. Plausible? Not. Speaker 0: And and what I believe what I believe is that he was targeted, profiled, and recruited, radicalized, and weaponized online. And I think they know that. And I think there's and I think there's a couple of different options there. Speaker 1: You're starting to get into that tinfoil hat MK Ultra thing that they're talking about. Speaker 0: Yeah. I'm I'm a 100% tinfoil hat on the MK Ultra. And I think I think, you know, it's it's not like MK Ultra stopped. They just stopped trying to control people's minds in 1968. Right? Speaker 1: Supposedly. Yeah. Speaker 0: We've we've since perfected it, and and I have a lot of good evidence with that. Speaker 1: Mhmm. Speaker 0: And the reason that we don't know the reason that the government hasn't shared that information with us is a couple of possible reasons. Number one, it was deep state ran to begin with, and, you know, these people didn't like president Trump. So they elements within our own intelligence community targeted him by through in the use of cover. You know? Mhmm. They're not gonna say, oh, hey. You know, we're we're projects ex wing out of the CIA. They're they're they're using so either our own people did it and or political actors did it and or foreign adversaries did it. I think they I think all of those are possible. All of those are possible. Even if they knew that for a fact, they're not gonna share that information because they don't want the public to know how easy this is. So it's doesn't benefit the government to even let them know that that is possible, I think we can Speaker 1: try Yeah. Why to do you wanna make your victims aware? I got it. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Let let let's let's let's just say they're on the up and up. Let's say let's say the FBI and other intelligence agencies are like, oh my god, this was done by a foreign actor or whatever else. It still doesn't it's kinda like the UAP program, right? Mhmm. Like, we, you know, speaking of of 10 full hats, and I'm I'm I'm very into the UAP program. I I'm I know it's I know it's real, but there are people that have decided that it doesn't benefit the Speaker 1: The UAP, is that the that's drones, right? UFOs. Oh, UAPs. Yeah. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. It doesn't benefit The US citizenry, citizenry to know about it. Right. So, there's no there's no upside for them to know about it. So, they're not gonna give any information on it. And I think it's the same thing. And I think when we look at we look at some of these other school shootings where they've kind of slipped this stuff under the rug, when we look at Steven Paddock from Las Vegas Mhmm. I think I think these were test runs. I think these were people being targeted and being radicalized and weaponized online. Speaker 1: Can I add one of those names to your list that you really should look into? Yeah. It should you should have already picked up on it. Travis Decker. Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. Speaker 1: There should be a whole thing about who killed Travis Decker. That's right up here in Wenatchee. And if you're up here in Washoe I don't know if you're in the North. Where are you? Speaker 0: I'm actually in West Virginia now. Speaker 1: Oh, lucky you. Speaker 0: This is my phone number from when I was still at I actually still had a house in Young until, I don't know, about two years ago. Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Yeah. The West Virginia, that's a pretty territory up there. Guys all they they tease you about the banjo plan. No. No. No. Speaker 0: No. So so here's here's the here's the truth of it. West Virginia was the only state of the union I ever declared I would never live in. Oh, no. And in in 2008 or so, we were down at we were down on Moyacht, North Carolina at Blackwater Mhmm. A pre deployment train up, and my team sergeant's brother came to visit. I was like, oh, hey. You know, what's where's he coming from? Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 0: He's like, he's coming from West Virginia. I was like, that's Virginia. I would never fucking live in West Virginia. And then, like, three years later, I'm I'm living in West Virginia because that's that's how that's the that's the games god's play plays Virginia. Speaker 1: God's a funny guy, isn't he? Speaker 0: Yeah. Indeed. Yeah. Speaker 1: Well, you seem like Yeah. Speaker 0: Know, going back to going back to, like, you know, this is this is another one of those third rail stories that even if the US government knows about it Speaker 1: Yeah. Doesn't My whole life is third real story. Pretty much. I think that's gonna be as a book. Thank you. I think that's gonna be the book name. Uh-huh. Speaker 0: Yeah. So but, yeah, man. No. I I love to have you on. I I thoroughly enjoyed talking to you. It puts my mind to these. Speaker 1: Yeah. No. I every time I hear special forces get online, the first thing I'm doing is I'm looking up truth fire digits, asking people, we know this guy. Is he one of us? Yeah. I I've done the whole Stone Valley thing, Guardians of the Green Beret. I've given them people. Yep. I totally get it. I also if you're gonna talk to Nate, tell him no harm, no foul. I mean, my missus on the other hand, she's a little bit pissed at the guy. You know, I I wouldn't have him turn his back on her just yet, but she'll get over Speaker 0: it. Nice nice again, you you know how our people are. Yeah. We're all gonna be extremely skeptical until we're not. And, know, quite frankly, that's a reasonable approach. We know the last thing that we want is people within our own regiment or people with outside of our regiment. Speaker 1: And I'll tell you within the regiment, oh, I'm a third rail because I am a third rail. I'll tell you what. There's there's guys there I I how you say it? Inconvenient truth bearer. I've just always been that way. I'm not gonna lie for anybody. True. And that, unfortunately, there's a lot of guys, especially in the military, who are yes men. Yeah. Don't get with that. Yeah. I ain't good with them. Speaker 0: I've always been a bit of a contrarian myself, so I I can relate. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. No. I I mean, I've done the whole flagpole compete for soldier of the quarter and stuff like that. You know all the shiny boots and whatnot. But I wasn't in for the Scooby Snacks. I wasn't there to pin stuff up. I was there because I wanted an actual mission and that's one of the things I got disappointed with most like if there was a something I got disappointed with more than anything it was the importance of politics within group. It was the start of the PC era you know. Yeah I wasn't well done with some of those. Had some problems. I had to call a guy out for being I don't want to offend you if you're gay or not but back then Speaker 0: you weren't supposed to be gay and be in service. But, know, Speaker 1: if that's your thing, you know, it doesn't sound like it, but, you know, it's 2025, you know. I Speaker 0: got two. Got two. Got an ex wife, a wife, and Speaker 2: four kids. Speaker 1: Oh, half the gay guys in San Francisco have kids. That ain't no explanation. Speaker 0: I'm sure. I said I'm fair enough. Speaker 1: Jesus. Fair enough. But, no, I had to call a guy out. He was stalking me and others, and he was part of our class. His name was Jimmy Walker. You can go look him up. And back then, oh, I got in trouble for wanting to wanting to just I didn't wanna be on the same team as him. Didn't wanna be in the same group. Everybody kept asking me. Finally, they pressed it out of me. I had to tell I had to tell the team god. What was his name? Bruce Ring, big tough guy back then. Great team sergeant until this issue came up. And then well, you know, I some guys are tough in front of bullets and and, you know, jumping out of planes and stuff, and then they get in front of political issues like this. And they're not how do you say? Speaker 0: They they what? Speaker 1: They melt like little pansies, man. And it you know? If you are actually s f and, you know, I we'll check you out. I don't know. Speaker 0: We'll see. Yeah. Speaker 1: You know that the guys the team room atmosphere, I used to describe it as they were worse than a than a group of old hands. A group of old ladies gossiping in church. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: Son of a bitch. Man, these guys. So Speaker 0: You're in politics. Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Well, this Jimmy Walker guy, his dad apparently was an SF general or something and was part of the Clinton administration. And yeah, you know, I had to call him out. I I didn't want to. It was the whole don't ask, don't tell, but, you know, he made it pretty apparent. So rather than kill the guy and get in trouble for it, I tried to do the right thing and just asked to, you know, change me to a different group. I'd like to you know, before this blows up into the next, you know, gay barrean center or something, I'd like to go work somewhere else. And, no. They blew it up like crazy. It went all the way to the freaking administration and back. And they took his side, they tried to claim, oh, he wasn't gay. Lions sons of bitches. Man, you fast forwarded to '9, 2000, Jimmy Walker is in the gay parade in Seattle wearing his beret on the front freaking paper. Okay? And now he's writing books and going to colleges talking about how you guys all at first group gave him PTSD and treated him so badly for being gay and what? You know, I can't win for losing. This guy's making money off of this stupid shit. But yeah. Yeah. Third Real? Yeah. You I I might just adopt that name. I don't know. Speaker 0: That's slurred. Well, yeah, man. Now listen. It it was it was really great talking to you. Like I said, what I what I will be is is I will be your biggest advocate. And, you know, if if Speaker 1: Only if I check out. You vet the shit out of me. I dare you Speaker 0: to. I that's that's that's what I was getting ready to say. You know, you you you check out. I'll be your biggest advocate. And either way, I'd love to have you on. I'll tell tell Nate I talked to you. And Speaker 1: Yeah. You can tell him I called him a big faggot with those jazz hands he's swinging around all the time. Speaker 0: He does like this. He does like to fly Speaker 1: You tell him I know that his sergeant major was Richard Simmons. Just by looking and about how he talks about big guys all the time, you know, and he's dissing the short guys. Yeah. And then he's hanging around with his prison sex partners, JD Delay. Yeah. Alright. Yeah. A little bit suspect, and it makes more sense that he's from first group. You tell him I said that behind channels. I will. Alright? I will. Alright. No. It it's really been good talking to you. Thank you for for reaching out, honestly. Speaker 0: Yeah, man. That was that's what I I thought it was the right thing to do to reach out to you directly and and not you know? Speaker 1: Yeah. I can go ahead and name drop a bunch of people. Me and Nate Chapman, for instance, we were good buddies. We graduated Robin Sage together. We went through the, what do you call it, the commemoration dinner, you know, the SF dinner and stuff together. But first group, the wonderful people that they are, didn't even send a rep for us. So it was me, Nate, and Tom West who sat there drinking the champagne. So we so because there was only three of us, we had a whole bunch of extra champagne that all the other guys wanted. So it started a little bit of a war during the dinner. But yeah. No. I can name drop all day long. I I know the people, places, Speaker 0: things. Awesome. Awesome. Well, like I said, you know, if you will just send me your d 214. I'll check that out. Yeah. I'll I'll like I said, man, I'm here I'm to be your biggest advocate. I I Do you Speaker 1: want my social security number on there? Can I trust you with that, or are gonna redact it? Speaker 0: I'm I'm not I I if I'm not gonna show even your 214. I'll you can I think probably I have your social? I'll just stay 13231322. 25. Speaker 1: So you were in during all the business. Do you you signed up afterward? After nine eleven? Speaker 0: Happened. Nine eleven happened a couple days. I was in recruiting station. I was with the hundred and first with the initial push into Iraq. I was a sniper team leader during that time. I came back. Speaker 1: Oh, did you know Tung Tung Nguyen? Speaker 0: Tung Nguyen. Mhmm. No. That that name doesn't sound familiar with but dude I'm fucking terrible with names. My Speaker 1: brain is Oh you wouldn't know this guy. This guy was he was like autistic Vietnamese dude. He had an incredible history. He died. Friendly fire is what it sounds like. Friendly mortar fire. Bad just a bad incident. The guy was when it came to guns, the guy was a nutcase. I can tell you a whole story about it. But, no. Tommy Wayne was a good friend of mine. He was sniper team also during that time. Just up I think, it was 2002, 2004. Hit that was a real loss too. Speaker 0: Yeah. I I was still I was still I was with the one eighty seven infantry at the time, and then I when I came back from that, the initial deployment to Iraq, it's a selection in one SF and was in Q course from 2005 to 2006. And then went to first group and then went on three more combat deployments and, you know, multiple training tours, Philippines, Asia, all the good things. And Speaker 1: I don't know how the strip clubs were. I could tell you a whole thing about the first first Gulf War, you know, in training then, and they were asking for people to go and come back. And if you were at Fort Bragg while they were deployed, they always said that there were no women available at Fort Bragg before I went because, you know, it's like, what, eight guys to every woman there. Speaker 0: Something like that. Speaker 1: Yeah. There was a little bit of competition, you know. And, yeah, Rick's, I think it was Rick's. Right? The strip club there. It was like a strip club right there on the main main drag or something. I think it was Rick's. Anyway, they had every place at Fayetteville was a strip club. Like, even you go out to breakfast and it was a it was topless. Cars. Speaker 0: Yeah. Car lots. Speaker 1: Yeah. You couldn't go out to breakfast with your family without, you know, it being a topless joint. So, yeah, what an incredible time that was before nine eleven, way back when. But, yeah. Speaker 0: I still got a while I was there and at the time, I I started dating a woman that's now my wife. But, yeah, I actually got a I still have a condo off of Riley Road that is a rental property for Speaker 1: Oh, wow. That's fun. Riley Road. Speaker 0: Yeah. I don't know when the last time you've been back to Brad, but, man, that place has changed. Speaker 1: It's been a while. I've heard it's become a city. Speaker 0: Oh, that's pretty insane. Speaker 1: Yeah. So is Fort Lewis. I tried to navigate there, Speaker 0: and it I couldn't even find that again anymore. But I Yeah. My son was actually born in Madigan. Speaker 1: Oh, really? Yeah. My daughter was. Yeah. Speaker 0: The point Speaker 1: being, there were guys that hadn't come back from the eighty second. The main the main body hadn't come back yet. And if you went out to the bars then at that time, it was packed with women. When I say packed, mean, like, sardine can packed. And if you were a guy that was in pretty good shape there, it was you had girls coming up to you buying you drinks and saying, hey. Can I take you home? Now as a young guy, again, I'm young. I'm an idiot. Okay? I'm thinking, wow. I don't know what they were talking about. Speaker 0: There's a Speaker 1: lot of women around this place. Boy, and they seem to be pretty well off and not not too needy. They got their own homes and cars and everything. That's pretty interesting. But, I was literally in a bar when, it had a disco light, a little band playing on the race stand there. They were it it was packed. And all of a sudden they they stopped the music. This is not a drill. This is not a drill. Eighty second airborne confirmed touchdown on the tarmac. Ladies and gentlemen, especially you ladies, you've got people you're expecting to come home. They're on the ground right now. The whoosh that left that place, it was me and, I wanna say, Bernie McGrory, were left standing there. And it was it was just the two of us sitting on the dance floor. There were probably 50 people there before. There's little chewing gum wrappers spinning around on the floor, and, oh, yeah, it just became empty. And then from then on, you know, they were empty from then on too. You know? Yeah. Of course, that started the whole epidemic of guys coming home to shoot. You know? We had one guy at at training group there. He came I wanna see. What? It wasn't Rambo. I wanna oh god. Was it Rambo or something like that? He came home literally to find his his team captain going at it with his wife inside of his bedroom. And, yeah, he went ahead and ventilated that guy's asshole a little bit with with a little bit of gunfighter as he jumped out the window. I don't think that I don't I don't think he got in trouble for it, though. I think the captain got kicked out. I think he had to do a little bit of time in the mental ward and got a divorce. That was back when they treated us decent, I guess. But yeah. SF, what do you do? Speaker 0: What do you do? Well, listen. This man is a real pleasure to talk to you. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. Another story we can't tell online. Otherwise, you're gonna get yourself canceled. Sorry. I know. Speaker 0: You get yourself what do Speaker 1: they call it? Demonetized? Speaker 2: Yeah. I changed a word. Speaker 1: Gary, no. It's been good talking to you too. Thank you for reaching out. You tell Nate Speaker 2: Look at those documents? Speaker 1: No. I'm gonna I'm gonna give him a little bit of Verizon, but, no, I I would be proud to speak with them or anybody else. We gotta let Candice do her thing, though, first. There's important stuff coming out. And you you do understand the implications. Right? Speaker 0: Oh, I understand the implications. It's it's quite big. Speaker 1: Yeah. It was it was just I don't know what else to say. Was just Yeah. Speaker 2: It was Speaker 1: wrong place, wrong time. Yeah. Or right place, right time. Speaker 2: Kinda how you look at it. Speaker 1: And, you know, you and I, we can look around the room and know which veterans are a little have a little bit different sheen even if they're in civilian clothing. These people stuck out, you know? That that woman had my ex wife's size, you know. That they're really creepy. So I I didn't mean for this this I meant for this just to be a tip. Hey. You might wanna check it out and Speaker 0: see it. Speaker 2: Into this. Speaker 1: Yeah. Where these people were the day before because I think they were there. I had no idea miss Candice Owens was gonna go ahead and blurt out my whole life story that I tried to get to her in about the same amount of times that I've been talking to you. Mhmm. Yeah. And, yeah, I mean, so far, there's there's no there it's been real quiet. So we're happy for that, I guess. Yeah. Hasn't gotten me a cup of coffee yet. Yeah. Speaker 0: Well, like I said, man, it likes you know, it it you're right. What what matters is the proof. And if Speaker 1: I could've made a mistake. Speaker 0: Every everything that we think is true with this, like, it has to get out and, you Speaker 2: know Yeah. Speaker 0: That's that's that's Yeah. That's what it comes down to, and that's what I've been in for this to begin with. I wanna know what really happened. And, you know, at the end the day, this all matters, man. It's like the American Speaker 1: people Speaker 0: to Speaker 1: be You start finding that I'm not credible. It's because you ain't asked for the for the documentation. I'll back it up. Okay. If I could've been wearing a camera on my eyes at that point, I would love to. Need to invest in that kind of stuff. Speaker 0: Where's Elon Musk when you need I need to get you some better glasses. Speaker 1: Seriously, I've already got a pair, but they only work with with freaking Facebook, and I hate that shit. Yeah. So No. They're kinda weird. Gary, get Speaker 0: out of here. Thank Speaker 1: you so much. Speaker 0: I really appreciate you. Look at that step set, you there. Appreciate you spending the time with me. And, you know, like I said, I'll your big biggest advocate when I'm I'll shoot Speaker 1: you off documents. How many documents you want? What do you want? Speaker 0: You know, your DD214, if you want to throw anything else in there, you're welcome to and for additional bonafidees. Sure. You know, whatever you feel comfortable with, I'm not gonna dox you no matter what. If I'm like, hey, this guy's a complete liar, I'm I'm not gonna put your information I'm out not I'm not Yeah. Speaker 1: I'd appreciate it. I mean, I've already had my stuff, like I get it ransacked. My husband rents. I have my stuff been stolen. And the one thing that they were after is the one folder I have. The only reason they didn't take that is because it it looks like it's it looks like a can go away. Love me book in in a very not very loving looking book. Speaker 2: I don't even wanna change it for you because I don't want you know, like, Speaker 1: because we know Yeah. But I got the microfiches and everything. We just don't have anybody that has microfiche anymore. Speaker 0: Uh-uh. Yeah. No. Like I said, man, all I wanna do is confirm or deny the truth, and Okay. That's And I'm not Speaker 1: No. I think they'll find out pretty damn credible. Yep. And if there's something in between, you guys want a question, alright. You go ahead Speaker 0: and question. Speaker 1: Yeah. I can't help what I saw. Alright. Speaker 0: Yep. I I I appreciate you being so forthcoming and yeah, man. That was great talking to you. Really was. Speaker 1: Yeah. Awesome. Thank you, It was good talking to you, Greg. Alright. You have a good one. Speaker 0: Alright, Mitch. You too, buddy. Speaker 1: Alright. Bye. Hey there. Hey, Mitch. Hey. Speaker 0: Hey. I was, I'm on a phone call when you were texting me, but I figured I'd just call you and talk as opposed to texting over signal or anything else. But, yeah, you know, I have definitely been, you know, an outspoken critic of Candace. And not even so much Candace, where that really started was when this whole thing with with Charlie happened, we were flooded with, you know, everything from the palm gun to camera gun to I don't know how much you've you step up with that. Have you seen all that stuff? Speaker 1: Yeah. Some of that stuff. I think I think the latest theory is something about Speaker 0: Electrolysis. Speaker 1: What what's that guy called? Barry Coleman? Speaker 0: Yeah. Ben Speaker 1: Coleman. Yeah. Something about the fragments. And I I don't know. I I don't have any opinion on that stuff, really. I I mean, I could. You know? What was your M and W's, by the way? Speaker 0: AT Bravo. Oh, you're you're a Bravo guy. Speaker 1: You went easy route. Yeah. What happened? You seem more intelligent than that, man. Speaker 0: I just like guns, dude. Speaker 1: You you just like guns, really. You're the gun guy? Okay. Alright. No. Tongue win. He was a gun guy too. That guy was a nutcase with those things. His his barracks room, the the guy was actually he was shooting inside the team rooms Okay. To test out his silence his silencers. Speaker 0: Suppress them. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. He was doing it inside. He oh, he's sneaking around. He pulled me in. Hey. Hey. Hey. Check this out. And he pulled me inside, and I could smell the gunpowder. I'm like, what are you doing, buddy? Toop. Toop. Toop. He's hitting the same bags on the wall as his team was out doing something. I don't know. Anyway Speaker 0: So, you you know, and and again, just to be completely transparent with Yeah. Speaker 1: You're you're I can see you're coming out of you're I'm I'm looking you up now. So I see Speaker 0: you're coming from here. Here's my here's my whole stance on this. This is I just want you to know this. So, again, when when when Charlie Kirk was first killed, number one, was a huge fan of Charlie Kirk. All of this I've been I've had a podcast talking about conservative politics for a really long time. And then Charlie Kirk was killed, and then suddenly we're flooded with all of this craziness. We're you know, the pawn guns, all we we didn't even have a quote, unquote official narrative at the time. You know what I mean? This is this is before charging documents came out. All all the things that we have now. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 0: And so the only thing that I did originally was like, okay. Look, guys. This wasn't a palm gun and here's why. Here, this wasn't a camera gun, and here's why. There wasn't an iPhone gun. It wasn't drones flying around shooting people. And immediately, I was at, like, these these were clearly bot attacks, by the way. So these people were saying, oh, you're this is before the again, there was no FBI narrative at the time. We were still this is, like, the week one the one week into this. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Certainly, it's like like, you're a Zionist. You're a Zionist. You're paid by Israel. You're a fed. All of this fucking craziness. And then we started coming out with people started coming out with these other these other Speaker 1: Well, I think actually spirits. Back there, there there was a little something that went on there just before that too. I I think it was tuck not Tucker Carlson. Lindsey Graham and that other television host, I forget his name, where they where they did this very nonorganic force thing where they were holding up signs and saying Tucker Carlson isn't MAGA. I don't know if you remember that, but that that same time frame. I I remember seeing that stuff. I I I understand you're getting at the fracturing of stuff, and I I Yes. I understand. Go ahead. Speaker 0: And and and my point is is the case one is the truth. And here's here's what I see as an underlying thing that's going on in my opinion. Based on what I've seen is Candice Candice has bad blood with TP USA. I think I think that's a a fair assessment. Speaker 1: Ah, that's about the understatement of the century, sir. Yeah. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. When she jumps in here and starts saying, oh, because, you know, Mikey McCoy and some of these other people, she she like the Candice immediately wrote off the idea that there was like Tyler Robson was the shooter. All the other things. And she was jumping from narrative to narrative to narrative. And all of those came back to three things that Candice always disliked. And that was TP USA. It was Israel. It was the French. I I again, I don't know how much you read up on all this stuff or you paid attention to what previous. Speaker 1: Yeah. Some of it because, I mean, I am familiar a little bit with the, I mean, I I didn't join the French formally. I considered it. Speaker 0: So did I, actually, at one point. Speaker 1: Yeah. So I and I do know, So one of our trainers from the 300 f one course was, master chief Jones. And, he is actually one of the people mentioned in the book. What is it? Mouthful of Rocks. It's a legendary book about French foreign legion. And that guy had an incredible story. He was crazy, and he would tell us about it. I know a little bit about it. I I think some I really don't have a whole lot of opinions about a lot of stuff. I I mean, I know possibilities. I think all possibilities should be considered, you know, until Speaker 0: I I 100% agree with you. And that's that's I'm a 100% in agreement with you. My concern is is that Candace Owens, that Candace has been exploited by political and or foreign adversaries is one of the things that you can't that it's hard to get away from. Regardless what you feel about the Trump administration or whatever else Is that what Speaker 1: Big supporter of them, by way. I'm one of the first Speaker 0: supporters. Awesome. Speaker 1: I've I've supported as a matter of fact, I went to war with most of the guys in the SF Brotherhood on Facebook page there. I'm the reason that they said you can't talk politics in there anymore because they got their asses handed to them. I was a me and Landon Valentine, the guy I mentioned before, were the first to speak up in that room and to be Trump supporters. And that was back in, god, 2012, something like that. Sure. Yeah. Way back when. Speaker 0: So my my my point is is I I think I feel like Candace is being exploited and I feel like part of this is a personal vendetta for Candace and by the way, I loved Candace. Yeah. And then the other problem that I have with with what she has has done is she has accused a lot of people without evidence. And I also feel like what it's doing is it is distracting us away from what's really taking place. And I think there's something larger at play here. I think to me it's to me, it's pretty obvious between the bot attacks, things that are being promoted within the for Speaker 1: him Sorry. Speaker 0: Today. And Speaker 1: I'm actually clicking on your video in the background. Nice. Nice. Nice. Go ahead. Speaker 0: And and I've also Candice has definitely omitted a lot of information. Like, for instance, if you're watching my video where I said Candice is lying, she intentionally says that you know, you have to scale the roof like Spider Man. That's not true. She's never shown how to get up onto that roof and I I think if you saw, I don't know, again, like, if you see how this this whole thing with Tyler Robinson is plausible because it was fairly simple. With that being said, when you're when you're saying that the French Foreign Legion, Israel, and The United States are all getting together to kill Charlie Kirk, It starts becoming a lot less plausible. Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 0: And maybe and and and I'm open to it. Look, I think our government is corrupt. I think but what I at the end the day, what I want is the truth. And you know, I went to to UVU to see what was going on there. I did a three d model. I had actually paid for a, was it a survey and drone to actually model the place, and I paid for the model itself so that people can and I gave that away for free. So that people can go on there, take a look at this, and they can play shooters in different spots and figure out what's possible, what's true, what's not. Speaker 1: Oh, you were gonna set up a three d model to reenact the try to reenact the scene and and CSI it from like a I I get you. Yeah. Speaker 0: Yeah. No. And I did. And I did. And I and I I gave that that so here's what happened. I spent thousands of bucks traveling there. I spent thousands of dollars, my own money. Mhmm. With a three d model surveyor with with a drone to map that place. And then when I got back, I spent a bunch of money in addition to another guy named CJ Currenti. He had a model. What we didn't have was where the Charlie setup. Right? So we didn't have the tent. We didn't have Charlie. We didn't have everything from that day from the scan. And and he spent tens of thousands of dollars modeling the tent accurately, putting Charlie in the right spot. And that model is plus or minus, like, one inch. That's how to scale and accurate it is. So what that allowed and then I gave that away. I just made it public. People can download it. There's two different versions of it. There's a Blender version, which is three d modeling software. And what that allowed us to do was, just like you said, you can like, okay. There was a guy saying, oh, there was a shooter over in this position. Well, just looking at it from Google Earth and imagery, I'm like, man, there's not a there's not a lot of sight from that position. I just know it, but I can't prove it. So what we did was we got the model and then people can put shooters in that position. You can see from that position whether or not what is real and what is not. At the end of the day, like, I want the truth. That's that's what I want and and I think that's really important. And I do think I think there's some things that are happening that I think there's a lot of psychological operations taking place right now. I think some of those are political. Some of those are possibly being perpetrated by foreign adversaries because they don't want they don't want the Trump administration. And what this has done is it's put a lot of doubt on the current Trump administration. And I do think that some of the things that are being said and being done are going to greatly affect the midterms, gonna greatly affect 2028. And I think you and I can agree the last thing that we want is I'm okay holding the government accountable. I wanna hold the government accountable no matter what. I if Speaker 1: I mean, I I I get where you're coming from. Speaker 0: And I You know, if if they were involved in this, I want I'll be the first one to say, let's fry these guys. Mhmm. I also don't want to be tricked by social media personalities because they're they're pushing something because of a vendetta and I don't want to be tricked by political forces and I don't want to be tricked by foreign adversaries that are trying to make it to where we have a weaker United States. That's that is 100% where my you know, that's my motivation, man. I love this country. I love what it's about. Speaker 1: The American Gary, I Speaker 0: know that. Know the truth. Speaker 1: I hear you. You sound like mean, you're calling me up and and, you know, sort of letting me out to maybe come on your show or something, and I get that. And you've already had questions. Anytime somebody says SF on on the air, oh, every one of us gets gets in our gruff and starts hunting down every single teammate he's ever had. I get it. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And Speaker 1: I Yeah. You know, when it comes to these politics, just like you said, I mean, one hand, the the I I hear what you're saying. There's Candace Owens, and she's she's got her angle with things. She's got her stuff, and she's claiming, you know, conspiracies and foreign involvement and stuff like that. And then on the same hand, you're over here and you're claiming, you know, that she's probably under influence of foreign governments and conspiracies and everything else. And I I see you both here. I hope you understand. It's not a Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. And and then that's what I want you to understand. Yeah. And at the end of the day, like like, the truth is what's important. And and and Speaker 1: You know what I say? I got no fucks to give. I I am I have really I have been a Trump supporter like crazy, and the only time the only time the main reason is because the guy couldn't be a sellout. He couldn't be bought. And the moment, the only time that ever fractured for me had nothing to do with any of this stuff. None of this stuff has actually even fractured that for me. I know how government is and its layers and how many times a boss is not responsible for their stupid private stuff. The only time that that's fractured for me was when after, what, eight, ten years of him saying bring on the Epstein list, and he just comes out of the blue and says, forget the are you still talking about Epstein? It was a hoax. Speaker 0: I'm I'm a 100% with you on that. Speaker 1: Okay. When somebody takes a 180 degree turn like that from the top down, and then they dish out what did they dish out yesterday? Was it yesterday or the day before? Finally gave out the Epstein list? Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: What was on that list? 88 pages of of black markers. So you're you're telling me that Dan Bongino at the FBI was was sitting there for, you know, the last six months with a black marker going over 88 pages to make sure he got every little piece of white out on there? Is that what's been happening? Something tells me there's a list. I think somebody's I think somebody's lying to us there. Speaker 0: No. But but there's there's no doubt. And and the other thing too is look. We had that whole narrative is complicated to say the least. Yeah. You know, I look. I'm I'm with you on that. Like, we we gotta get to the bottom of that. We gotta get to the bottom of and and this is so I started out this channel as, like, just a gun channel. Right? All we did you know, I own a company. We teach firearms. We teach you know, we train people in basic through advanced, pistol, rifle, long range. We kinda specialize in long range. That's kind of what we're known known for. Speaker 1: Ten years ago, I probably could have taught your class. And and, yeah, I'm down with you. I know exactly what you probably do. And I think you probably do it better than anybody else in the world too. You and Speaker 0: Well, and I I I got a great I got a great cadre of instructors. It's not just me. Speaker 1: Yeah. We both done that. Speaker 0: You know what I mean? And then on top of that, you know, what I've I started this YouTube channel during COVID, and then, of course, I covered firearms and stuff like that. But I again, I'm also I'm also in politics and and what I mean by that is like, I think it's important to preserve and protect the constitution to push the things that I believe, right? I mean, that's what it comes down to. That's what you and I fought for this country for. It's what we signed up for. We swore an oath. That oath didn't go away and I still feel that way and I see that this country is being torn away and being eroded by what I see is a real problem with leftist politics, whether we're talking about trans ideology, whether we're talking about the attack on the Second Amendment, the attack on the First Amendment, and then we have a media that lies and pushes things. Speaker 1: You're gonna have to forgive me. If you hear a scream in the background, it's not some little kid, don't call the police. That's my, that's my blue golden macaw, and he's he's quite the character too. He saved my life. So Speaker 0: Go So ahead. You know, that's long story short. That is that's where I'm coming from, man. And and what I am is a 100% I believe in integrity. I believe in telling the truth. I believe in making sure that the truth is known. And that's what I wanna get down to. Speaker 1: So let me ask you this then. I mean, because Yep. I mean, since you're doing this, you're into it way probably way more than I am. I know everybody is sitting on the sidelines here. Any any SF guy who shot a gun and God knows we had to do calls on that all of it. Right? Mhmm. Every single year. Yeah. We go out to the range and we have to we have to burn down the ranges with with phosphorus rounds damn near every day every year. Look. We all know something seems wrong with the 30 odd six thing. What what what's your what do you think? Speaker 0: What I think is kinda what I've said from the beginning is that the problem is we don't know. The problem is we don't everything that we would need to know about the ammunition and about the rifle that would help us to determine a ballistic a terminal ballistic outcome, we don't know. We don't know the grain of that bullet. We don't know the type of ammunition. We don't know whether it was hand loads or factory. We don't know if it, the type of the projectile, was it full metal jacket? Was it soft point? Was it a ballistic tip? Was it frangible? We don't know any of those things. Speaker 1: Yeah. Could have done a blank run at close range. We don't know. I get it. Speaker 0: A 100%. So, like, I'm a little what I do know and even going into this, like, obviously, we like, I've shot a 30 off six, like, five or six times. You know, like, it's not like, it's a fairly antiquated round. It's nothing that we use. Speaker 1: I grew up with them. Sorry. I I grew up my dad used to take us deer hunting all the time in El Camino. Yeah. So I grew up with them. It's a third cannon. Speaker 0: Yeah. And but the reality is, like, with the 30 odd six, there's everything from, like, 55 grain old accelerator rounds all the way up to 220 grain and with a lot of different other options in between. And originally going into this, I had the same I same opinion there. Like, there's no fucking way that this guy was hitting the neck with a 30 odd six. Now with that being said, I also I teach long range for a living, and I also know that weird shit happens with ammo. Like, we just had a we just had some six millimeter Creedmoor ammo that we were out shooting on the range just a few months ago and about every fifth round would exit the barrel and the the round would disintegrate mid air. Speaker 1: That's so nice. Speaker 0: You know, we don't know that and that's another thing too. It's like, we don't know how old that ammo was. We don't know if there was something Speaker 1: The round are you telling me that a round from a 30 odd six disintegrated leaving the barrel? What was in 30 odd Speaker 0: six round. No. This wasn't a 30 odd six round. This was a a, like long range precision rifle and six millimeter creep more is what the the round. Speaker 1: Oh, I see what Speaker 0: you're Okay. I I've seen I've seen the same thing happen with six five Creedmoor. And it's corner the ELDM. So, my point is is when it comes to the variables that we're dealing with ballistics Yeah. There is typical and there's atypical results. And without a doubt, what we see with Charlie Kirk is an atypical result. Now there's a thousand explanations that I can come up with off the top of my head that would explain that. You know, it could be a round that wasn't stabilized, so it started to yaw and even started to tumble when it hit it, which that makes a little bit of sense to me because we have an atypical entrance wound. That entrance wound was larger than normal. And what I can say with certainty is if I agree. That looks Speaker 1: everybody thinks that looks more like an exit wound. Yeah. Speaker 0: An exit wound. Mhmm. And and what I can say with certainty is that if that if that round, even if it was 30 off six, even if it was two twenty grain, even if it was going to twenty hundred feet per second. If that round, that projectile was in an extreme yaw, so it didn't hit the skin tip first and it was already, you know, three quarters of the way sideways or even sideways when it hit. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: Yeah. The chances of it and especially once it hits Speaker 1: You know the problem with that. Right? Speaker 0: Go ahead. Tell me. Speaker 1: Well, 30 odd six is so our military rounds, they're made to tumble. Mhmm. 30 odd sixes aren't. Speaker 0: You're you're right, but they're not made to tumble in the air. And that's what I'm saying. Yeah. If we had a round that wasn't stabilized, there could be something wrong with that. The barrel, Speaker 1: the barrel, the round, something was off. I I'm Speaker 0: There's a thousand there's a thousand plausible explanations as to why. And here's the other thing too. Mhmm. One thing that I was not aware of before this incident, and I've studied in-depth on this, was Martin Luther King. The the what happened with Martin Luther King is extremely similar, unbelievably similar to what happened to Charlie Kirk. Mhmm. Martin Luther King was shot from 65 yards away with a 30 out six round. It hit him in his face. It glanced off his jaw and then went into his neck and then hit his spine and then went downward. Now, there's a lot of controversy around Martin Luther King, right? You know, whether or not it was James Earl Ray that shot him, whether or not the CIA was involved, all of those things. But one thing that has never been was never really contested during that time was whether or not it was a 30 out six. So we have Martin Luther King shot from half the distance that Charlie Brook was. It hit his spine and this is important. This is one of the things that that is interesting to me. Right. Hit his spine and didn't exit just like with Charlie Kirk. And so much so that Martin Luther King ended up having a open casket funeral. Then on top of that then we have another case study which Nate just had on his show, a guy named Chuck Ritter. Chuck Ritter, Green Beret, this is a crazy story. Chuck Ritter was shot four times with seven sixty two by '54. And seven sixty two by 54 is literally always kind of been known as the Russian version of 30 odd six. Okay. Realistically. Yep. They are identical. Now what's interesting about this is that Chuck was actually hit in the back through the rib cage almost from the side kind of let's say off to his 04:00. He it entered his back, hit his spine, went downward, and not only did he live, he had no exit wound, but he lived. He was shot three more two more times in that incident. So he was shot three times with seven sixty two by 54 and the tough son of a kept fighting and it ended up killing the guy that shot Speaker 1: I I think both of you have to admit that there's a long list of Green Beret Medal of Honor winners that that you take a look at Benavides. I don't know if you ever got to meet him. Oh, yeah. Did. I know his daughter, A wonderful lady. It's really sad what they did to Benavita's wife. Holy damn. But I'll tell you. Yeah. The guy was riddled like Swiss cheese. Does he live through that? What is it? You know, you talk about do bat. Are there is there evidence of magic bullets? Yeah. At times. I I think maybe. I I think you're right. Speaker 0: And and and and when it comes to that, like, here's the thing. Is if if the the point is is that people are people are trying to fill an unknown. The number one, we have a lot of people that don't, like, you know, when I hear somebody kinda speak from authority and say, oh, well, you know, I've been hunting my whole life and, you know, 30 on six, I blow a tree in half. Okay. Yeah. Speaker 1: They could Speaker 0: What Yeah. It's depending. You're absolutely wrong. Speaker 1: Could. Yeah. I get it. And it also could just stop inside of a you know, within one inch of a tree too. I've seen that happen. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: Depends on the tree. It depends I on have Speaker 0: all kinds of hunters. Weather. Speaker 1: Rain. Yeah. All sorts of stuff. Yep. Speaker 0: There's a there's a thousand the point here is that people that really know ballistics understand that there's a thousand variables that can determine an outcome, right? And you know, I have hundreds of hunters that have sent me pictures of, I just got one the other day. The guy shot a deer in the shoulder with 30 off six. He says, 35 yards away. And it lodged into the outer shoulder bone. Didn't penetrate. And then he ended up having to put another round on on the deer with 30 odd six. Speaker 1: Yeah, it finished off. Yeah. Speaker 0: You know, so the point here is is that that well, here's the real issue. We have a we have Tyler Robinson who we have his DNA on the firearm. We have DNA on the trigger. We have DNA on the spent cartridge. We have his DNA on the towel that he used. We have surveillance footage of him getting up to that position. We have surveillance footage of him moving out to the position as described by the charging documents. Then we have we have text messages, which are definitely weird. We also have him admitting to his parents that he was the shooter and then his parents turned him in. To me, that's probably one of the biggest Speaker 1: Well, think that last part there. I mean, that last part actually, if I've been paying attention right good and trust me I'm trying not to I gotta I have one of these things called a life. All of this is quite a big distraction because I was trying to do some get attention for something completely different to save the lives of guys like you and our other brothers and stuff and to and to maybe get them their children back if possible. This is a big inconvenience to me to be honest with Speaker 0: you. So Speaker 1: This has taken all the air out of the room. That being said, the last part there, having been familiar with, unfortunately, police work, unfortunately, federal gauges lately. And, I can tell you I have been heartbrokenly disappointed in the diligence of of agents from city police, county sheriffs, FBI, we have gone from here to Washington DC to Florida, you know, and then down to Huachuca and back. The I wow. The ability for them to sit at a computer and wanna just narrate stuff is incredible and not get up off of their ass and go do stuff and, I don't know, maybe investigate facts. If you're you know, like, I don't wanna convince you one way or another. I've witnessed this with my own eyes just as No. Speaker 0: I I 100% agree with you. Like, on that. Like, we we they they can create any narrative they want. We agree on that. Speaker 1: A lot of times they create narratives so that they don't have to get up out of the damn chair. Speaker 0: I agree. I will. That's why to me the, the most compelling portion of this that makes it more likely that Tyler Robinson is indeed guilty is that his parents turned him in. Speaker 1: That's actually been debated. They don't have that evidence. I don't know if you've got that or not. Speaker 0: I, know it's been debated. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: I don't know that there's, there's, because here's the thing. Let's say that your son was being put up on death death penalty charges, right? Speaker 1: Uh-huh. Speaker 0: And and then they release a document saying that you turn them in and basically part of your testimony as a father is the reason that they're charging you. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: Would would there be anything that would stop you from getting in front of a camera and saying, these people are trying to railroad my son to a death penalty case. Speaker 1: And I'm here to tell you you are barking up the wrong tree. I actually have a real case example of that, and it concerns one of our brothers from way back when. I have as a matter of fact, it was a while I was at Fort Bragg. And, yes, I watched, him get accused of so we're gonna divert so that you understand where I'm coming from on this for a little bit here. Speaker 0: No. Send it. Speaker 1: He was he had picked up a girlfriend in Texas when we were there at 300 F 1. I got recycled into the they didn't wanna lose me. The cadre actually stuck up for me. It was really sort of sweet what they did, I guess. So when it broke my back and stuff, they gave me time off. They couldn't get me back in the medic. They recycled me into the Charlie. I go to Charlie, my buddy. He goes, he continues on. I think he was the class valedictorian at that point going to go lab. So he's going through, you know how stressful that is, right? That's like the most stressful part of the medics program there that they're losing their minds. But he got this girlfriend brought her along there in Fayetteville she ends up bringing her three daughters from a previous marriage. These two weren't married yet either. Just all of a sudden they're in a one bedroom apartment. Now they've got three girls with them and one of them comes back while I'm over there visiting with my buddy, Joe Ross or something. He, he was going through the course with us too. The three of us knew each other. We went over to Doug's place and little girls they come in after school. Terry brings them in and I happen to notice being that you know I've been through the medic course, I'm EMT qualified, that kind of stuff. Me and Doug were in the course together. And I see this little girl and she's got one pupil blown out bigger than the other. Now you've done your cross training. Right? Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. What does one pupil bigger than the other indicate to you? Speaker 0: Brain damage. Speaker 1: Yeah. There's something going on in it. Speaker 0: Yep. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. I I looked at that too and I was like, woah. Plus, I also happened to go out at night. Back then, there was a big what was that stuff that they were using? Some people going out to clubs and whatnot they were doing those drugs that would make your pupils get all big and stuff. They were a little bit crazy. Speaker 0: Excuses to see or? Speaker 1: Yeah. Something like that where they would they you know, it's something you notice back in that time. And this little girl, she's got one pupil bigger than the other. I bring it up to Doug and of course, they don't have the money to run off to to the hospital with her and I think he made a big mistake. And he tried to play it off that no it's it's common in seven percent of the population he says. I'm like, oh, Doug, I I don't know. I I don't I don't remember seeing that whether I probably would have noticed something like that. We leave, and a couple days later, know Doug and Terry and the girls are gone. Me and Joe we can't get a hold of them and finally we get contacted by police and whatnot and we have to find out the story backstory from them. But apparently in the middle of the night, she ends up on the floor sweating. He tries to do so. So what does an SF medic try to do when he sees something, know, girl sweating, she's got a fever, it's called the ambulance. I'm gonna go try to manage. Right? And he puts her into the tub, think, to try and cool her down. Instantly she goes into a you might know this term, the flying fag position is what I remember they used to dub it. I can't remember. It's when there's brain damage and all the extensors seize up. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. So apparently she goes into that and he immediately knows, oh, this is bigger than that. And they have to get in the car, take her to the hospital. Now he ends up knowing, having more knowledge than what the doctors think he should have as an enlisted person. You know like what are you, how do you know all this stuff? How do you know mechanism of injury? Anything like that if you're not a doctor. Are you a doctor? Are you an officer? No, I'm an SF medic. Oh, special forces green beret? Oh, immediately they went ahead and they got offended. And of course they didn't do get, they didn't immediately take any of his advice. They delayed treatment. As they did she passed away. What they found out later years later is that she had returned home from daycare that day that we had seen her. She had been hit in the forehead by the daycare owner's son, a five year old. This little girl was like two with a swing had knocked her flat out. They didn't report it. They put a band aid on her, sent her home. Why didn't they report it? Because the daycare owner, she was the daughter of the elected sheriff who called dad when she had a knocked out two year old at her place. Dad said put a band aid on it. Don't say a word. Send her home. So that's when me and Joe saw her. Doug didn't take her to the emergency room. Two days later, they finally go. She's dead. Now what do they do to get out of all of this? That sheriff ends up putting investigators on it to go ahead and turn Doug into, yeah, into a child abuser. Doug had never abused anybody in his life. Sure. And now was he gregarious? Was he did him and Terry maybe get into some yelling matches? Absolutely. They were those those types that, what do you call it? They yell at each other and then they turn very passionate. Next thing you know you have to leave because they're making noise in the bedroom. It's like, oh, jeez. You know? So but yeah. No. I I sat there and had to be a witness to the sheriff putting out in the paper that both him and Terry had admitted to harming this little girl. They did that and they held him on house arrest for years as they basically isolated him. They put out, I can't tell you how many times in the newspaper they put out false things. They would say that those people said something that they didn't. Sure. That just to poison the jury pool, just to poison the public. And they did, and they got away with railroading him. He got convicted. He was in jail for thirteen years until they finally, finally the daycare owner had a crisis of conscience and she came forward. And even then they couldn't get him out of jail but eventually some deal got worked out. He's now moved on with his life. It's caused him tremendous amount of pain. We lost we lost a valedictorian SF medic. So now you're telling me, you know, would they would they come up with something? Would they come up with a lie? Would they say? Would a prosecutorial team lie to the public? Speaker 0: I I'm not disagreeing with you on that. Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. They would. I've had it happen to me here. Speaker 0: Percent believe that they would. What I'm saying is is the parents. If the parents if they're putting things in those charging documents that they're basically using the parents' testimony, which they do Mhmm. As evidence against Tyler Robinson. Mhmm. What I'm saying is that the parents, the fact that Speaker 1: Oh, what would stop them from going out? I'll tell you exactly what it is. The attorneys. The attorneys would tell the parents to shut up. Don't fight it. We'll fight it in court. We promise. Guarantee it. Speaker 0: All of that's possible. I I I don't disagree with that. Mhmm. What I'm saying is is that when it comes to the court case, if that is true, then we get the parents up on because it's gonna happen. Speaker 1: Mhmm. Speaker 0: If the parents get up on the stand and confirm or deny that, the the case is gonna fall apart if if if this was all a a Speaker 1: lie Based on your opinion right there, just that alone, that would make the case fall. I I get you. And I I think that you know what? If that holds up and all of that's true and and these texts and everything else, hey. Wow. Okay. If that's what really proves it, fantastic. Okay. We got the guy that That did say Speaker 0: doesn't that doesn't prove that this isn't a larger conspiracy. And this is one of the things that I've said from the beginning and and me and Nate Speaker 1: Still don't explain what I saw down and it doesn't explain what I saw the day before. Speaker 0: That's and that's what we need to figure out. And that is exactly why I contacted you because this is a critical piece. It's not about debunking you. It's about, hey, is this indeed true? Am I accurate? Speaker 1: Do I have good eyesight? Can I remember stuff? Do I have a pretty good memory? I better just myself? All all the credibility in the world. I get it. Speaker 0: Yep. Yeah. Yep. Yep. All all of that's true. Speaker 1: You know what I said to him? The thing. Speaker 0: There's somebody that's gonna be harder on the US government than me and Nate if this is true. Mhmm. You know what I mean? Like like, okay. I don't I don't give a shit if if it comes to find out that I want to know who the fuck killed Charlie Kirk. That's what I wanna know. And if the US government is involved in one way or another, here's the other thing. Even if Tyler Robinson is indeed the shooter, that doesn't exclude the US government from involvement because I think just like Thomas Crooks and this is where I was going with earlier. I think that somebody recruited, radicalized, and weaponized this guy even if that's the case. So, that's still puts and that's something that needs to be that needs to be discussed and making people understand that that is something absolutely impossible. Speaker 1: You're a gun guy. Right? Let's see. Let let let's do something. Listen now. Do you mind if we take a little minute to analogize? Speaker 0: George. George. I I do got I I have a appointment at 05:30, but I just wanna let you know that. But I I I do wanna hear this. Speaker 1: Alright. So 04:30. You got a car shop and you got you got cars that don't run. Okay. So people bring them in, they don't run. And every time you go into that car shop and that car shop says, that's a broken cylinder head. You gotta replace the whole engine. Okay. So the next guy comes in. He can't start the car. Alright. Different car. Whatever. And he says, broken cylinder head. You gotta replace the engine. Okay. Fine. You do that a third, fourth, fourth time, fifth time, every single problem that goes into that shop, and I suppose the complicated issues. And it's always the same thing. Broken cylinder head. Gotta replace the engine. Now come on me stupid, you know, but I don't think every every car that don't start has a broken cylinder head and needs an engine replaced. Right? You with me on that? Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. So when I take a look at any of these things, if I do have an opinion, then maybe this gives you an up when I look at some of this stuff. And I I I won't necessarily be a conspiracy theorist. I wanna you and I both wanna shoot things down the middle. The only thing I find weird about every single incident since JFK, to include the one that you brought up there with Martin Luther King. So JFK, Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan, president Trump, and now Charlie Kirk, and there's probably a few more in there. Every single time, it's a lone shooter and magic bullets. Every time the FBI gets involved, whatever section that is, there's some old guy sitting up there, and it seems like he is that that mechanic in the thing who says it's a broken cylinder head and you gotta replace the engine every time. Well, somebody at the FBI, they've got this narrative where it's lone shooter magic bullets. Lone shooter magic bullets and you, you would have a fantastic point and maybe I can give you give you advice for your show if if I could be so bold. Be bold, do it. Go repeat the findings. Go repeat the magic bullet. Go get a 30 yard six, get on a roof, shoot it from that angle, and have it lodge in the neck. You repeat that, then you got something. Speaker 0: Oh, we're going to. We're we're absolutely going to. And here's here's the problem with that or the challenge with that is right now what we what I need is I need to know what the ammo is. When we get and it's probably gonna be we're gonna to wait till the trial because there's literally over a thousand variations. I have, like, 20 different types of 30 out six ammo down in my basement right now that I've ordered. Speaker 1: Yeah. Stalked that phone. Yeah. Go I mean, when I see if I see somebody, you know, because I've seen Valhalla get out there. I've seen some of these other guys do their stuff. And I was really proud that somebody actually did some ballistics. You know, we get to see it. Right? And a 30 odd six completely just, it does exactly what I've seen it do in the past and what every hunter has seen doing the patch. Every once in a while there's a one off. But why is it every time there's an assassination, why is it that is the time that we got this lone shooter magic bullet stuff one off things going That to me, it doesn't instill confidence in me. No. Speaker 0: Look, there's nothing just like I talked about. There's nothing what we're talking about is atypical results. Speaker 1: Atypical. Yeah. It's weird. Speaker 0: Without a doubt. And I'm I'm completely open to the idea that the government's Speaker 1: Gary, I'm just a regular old guy just sitting here. You know? I try to live my life. And, none of this is convenient for me and what I've been trying to do to get my son back. So, yeah. When I look at this stuff, I just oh lord. Hey. Go go somebody go repeat yourself. Speaker 0: Fortunately fortunately or unfortunate unfortunate for you, I think you potentially have the information and the key. Because if we can verify your story, I think it changes everything. And that's why that you have become such an important piece of this. Speaker 1: I will tell you I've given, there's a lot of information I gave about where I was, what I was doing, the devices I had on me. No. I'm not a spy. I did not mean to walk into stuff, but I I did give it up to you know, everything I gave, I gave it over to to miss Owens and I gave it to, Joe Kent. There's, you know, and that's again, I I I offer my witness statement. I think that they will have there's gonna be more corroborating things coming. And I'll I'll just give that to you, but I do believe that the truth what I saw, it doesn't change anything you've talked about with with magic bullets one bit. I I have no opinion, no connection. I'm not with I knew Charlie I didn't know Charlie Kirk. I watched him. Absolutely support him. I thought what he did was courageous. Thought it was also dangerous. Because I've I've seen some of those little girls. If you ever go to Portland, holy cow. Don't ever have a Trump sticker on your car. Yeah. I don't know. I I it it where I was, what I was doing, it had nothing to do with any of that stuff. I just have the worst luck in the world. I really do. Speaker 0: You do? Speaker 1: I really. Speaker 0: I agree that you do. And like I said, you know, that's why it's so important to to corroborate your story. And at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is the truth. I mean, nothing else matters. Nothing else matter. No narrative matters. What what matters is the truth. And if we can corroborate your story and again, just like I've told you before, you know, I'm going to be your biggest advocate without a doubt. And we need to get you on the show and we need to get more information on that and, you know, see where this leads. That's that's that's what we need to do. Speaker 1: Well, we'll we'll yeah. I'm honestly, I'm all for it. I I can tell you, me personally, yeah. Ever since any of this has aired, you know, the Internet trolls are out there. They're digging up superficial stuff left and right, and they're trashing the hell out of my neighbor. Speaker 0: Of Speaker 1: course, yeah, look, native a hollow, I hope you spoke to him. I got Speaker 0: I did. I talked Speaker 1: to him. I got no hard fields. I'm gonna razz him a bit. You know? No offense. He he can be a big guy all at once. I I made a whole living. Big guys underestimate me. I'll chop down a redwood and break its branches off. But it he's a I like him. I I think you guys are wrong. Speaker 0: It'll and look. You know? I I said the same thing. I said the same things as as Nate did. You know? Like, hey, I don't think this guy was an SF guy. And I'll be the first one to go on the record and be like, hey, you know what? I checked out a story and Nate has said the same thing. I just talked to him. I like, it looks, you know, that he sent me some documents already. Speaker 1: Oh, I'm an SF guy. And I'll tell you what, there's a lot of SF guys that hate me for being an SF guy. I've been eight balled like crazy. Speaker 0: Yeah. Now there's a look. There's personalities in SF. It's just like Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. There's a few the whole Speaker 0: teddy thing. You should Speaker 1: have seen that thing go on. I I remember that went on. That was nuts. I don't know if you remember that or not. Speaker 0: I remember what? Say that again. Speaker 1: Oh, teddy with he was one of the first guys like the survivor no. Wasn't survivor show. Dual survivor on the history channel. He made all sorts of claims and then him and George Davenport from the Green Beret. What was it? Protectors of Green Beret. I forgot what they called it back then. Speaker 0: Guardians of the Green Yeah Speaker 1: Guardians of Green Beret. George Davenport started slamming him. They went back and forth. Those guys were gonna kill each other. They were stalking each other, gonna kill each other. Eventually it came out that there was a big court case. That's what actually locked down SF Brothers ended up losing like four years of data because Facebook had to lock it all up because the history channel locked down there with legal stuff. Yeah. SF guys, when when things go, it tends to be yeah. Sit back. Grab your popcorn. It's gonna be a freaking firework show. Anyway About Speaker 0: 100. Speaker 1: We we get ourselves involved. Speaker 0: I I got a I got a appointment I gotta get to, but, I said, you know, whether unfortunately for you, I think you are the key to this entire thing. And I think if we can get everything you said corroborated, I think it's you know, I I think I think it opens this thing up to something much, much bigger. And Speaker 1: We'll see where this I'm open to it. You know, I I think miss Owens' camp, she she's weary about you guys. And I think she's weary about everybody. To be totally honest after talking with her, she's scared too but she's also brave from what I can tell. She's a fighter and she's following her stuff. Yeah. I I I don't I don't necessarily feel like we've got all the answers. We definitely nobody's paid attention. Speaker 0: Well, that's a fact. Without a doubt. No matter what, no matter where all this lands, we don't have the answers. Speaker 1: We don't. Federal government, I understand they have a prosecute there's a prosecution. At some point, the federal government forgot that they're supposed to be prosecuting in order to be how do you say, they're supposed to be reporting to the public. They're not, it's not supposed to be a prosecution for somebody's career, okay, just to win. We prosecute to assure the public we've done the right thing. We're their boss. They should be reporting this stuff. If we don't know, there's something wrong. And I understand they've got a case to prosecute. Speaker 0: Yeah. There there there is a especially as a high profile case, look, I I see it from all angles. I see that they they can't contaminate the jury pool. At the same time, they are trying to prosecute this case. At the same time, we expect transparency. And there's a fine line there. And I'm sure both I think there's some expectations from the public that are a little unrealistic, but I also think that the US government isn't or at least at this point, really, it's Utah. I think Utah maybe it could be two one or two things. Either they're being they're they're being extremely careful because of the profile of this case or they're covering things up. I'm open to it all. And and I think all those things are possible. We just gotta collect as much information as we can to figure out what the truth actually is. And that's that's what I want to do. I I want the government held accountable. I don't trust the government. We saw that the FBI lied about or the government lied about COVID. We know that the FBI lied about January 6. We know that the COVID vaccines. We know that there has been there has been conspiracy after conspiracy after conspiracy. There's no doubt about it. But then you also have other things like QAnon. So it's like, where do you all you can do is judge each one of these individually, figure out the facts, and then we can figure out Speaker 1: who's What was the Speaker 0: the truth. Speaker 1: I I keep hearing about this QAnon. I'd never really got it. Speaker 0: It's gonna funny. QAnon was this big conspiracy thing online right around the time that right before the first Trump administration. Mhmm. And it was it was another ultimately what I can tell you for sure. I don't know where it originated. But what it was was this disinformation operation. For sure. Speaker 1: It was Speaker 0: a huge sigh on. And all these people on the right were buying into this thing that it it was a bunch of different things. There was these cue drops and, you know, the cue is a reference to the highest level of classification. Speaker 1: So Right. Clearance. Speaker 0: The idea was that there was somebody with a queue clearance that would share an information to the public. And this person was known as Q and A non obviously being Speaker 1: a non. That makes more sense. I get it now. Okay. Speaker 0: So one of the things they said was that the moment that Trump wins the election, JFK junior was going to appear and he's not been read. And it was a whole bunch of other other things that ended up being not true. And what I think it was, I think it was a product of the left that was trying to discredit and make the right look stupid, and they did a really good job of it. So that's that's the context of this. So I do think that there are people that take advantage of the fact that we know that there are conspiracies and the fact that we are distrustful of the government. And, these could be political actors. They could be, you know, the George Shorroff types or they could be. Speaker 1: Yeah. Like I said, I mean, you you you're you're okay. Let's say Candace Owens is is alleging there's a conspiracy of the government or TPSA or or whatever. And then you've got you. You're saying, wait a minute. There's other governments that are conspiring against us and they're conspiring with Candace Owens. Okay so we got all of these allegations going on nobody really knows the truth unless you're there. I agree and I'll tell you all I know all I know is I have I have a real bad habit of showing up in in the craziest of times and happened to be, this is the last thing I want to be in the middle of. This this whole thing was the last thing. At the same time, I can't, yeah. I'm not gonna lie for nobody. No offense. I've lost too much of my life. There ain't nothing you can pay me. And as far as like what I'm gonna put this. So in case you're taking notes, I ain't taking a damn cent from Kana Songs. I my heart goes out. Like, I am so humbled by the support she she put out there that she's intending to do a fundraiser for me. And from what I hear that there there's an account building, and I'm and until you guys vet the go ahead and air my dirty laundry and let me defend it, Whatever. I don't plan to take his time from this. All I want, I want justice for me and my son. I've told Candace Owens this. That's what I was seeking when I went down there. This is all a distraction. It is a it has sucked all the air out of the room, and I hope we get past it. I hope you guys do find all the answers. What I can say is during a you can't pay me a dollar to lie. I know what I saw. I think I do and I'm typically pretty damn good at that stuff and it's unfortunately not a gift. A it's a curse as well as you get you're starting to see. Speaker 0: So Well, I think I I think I think Mitch, you and I are on the same page and like I said, no matter what, I'm not gonna do Speaker 1: you dirty. I appreciate it. Speaker 0: Doxie or anything crazy like that. Speaker 1: Yeah. You came at me a little bit hard on that. Saw a little bit of it, but you know, again. Oh yeah, Speaker 0: yeah, No, I did. I, you know, the Speaker 1: No, I'm gonna ask I'm a mess up guy that's sort of disconnected from myself and you're like, the hell, I ain't heard of this guy before. Yeah, I totally get it. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yes. Yep. No. And and that's why I wanted to reach out to you personally. Speaker 1: I'm glad you did. Speaker 0: And, you know, I mean, that's I think that's the right thing to do. And so, like I said, man, you know, we're everything checks out. You're not gonna have a bigger advocate than me and Nate for sure. I promise you. Speaker 1: I appreciate that. And if, I don't know what what else you guys need to check out, but, yeah, I'll I'll I'll give it to you. And you guys go ahead and do your thing. Let me know that you guys Do Speaker 0: if do you mind if I give, Nate your phone number as well? Speaker 1: Yeah. I really appreciate it. I've reached out to him. I paid you know, he owes me a little bit of money now, because I I paid, like, $45 trying to do a super chat. Just trying to get ahold of him and give him my give my contact. Dumbass. Speaker 0: I'll I'll give you I'll give him your phone number, and, you can get your money's worth out of him. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Yeah. I don't know how I get paid for all this stuff. But, anyway, you guys have all that figured out. One of these days, show up to court for me. That would be great. Speaker 0: Well, we'll do what we can. Listen. I gotta get to another appointment, but, like I said, I would just wanna give you a call. I appreciate you, and I appreciate you being honest with me. And Yeah. You bet, Speaker 1: Gary. It's been good talking Speaker 0: to You too, buddy. Thanks. Speaker 1: Alright, Gary. Have a good one. Bye.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨ASK ME ANYTHING: On Late Night X Space; @RealCandaceO Proves Mitch's Story Holds – And Exposes Why the Smears Are Desperate⚡️ Last night (Dec 29, 2025), Candace Owens hosted a packed X Space diving deep into the Fort Huachuca timeline in Charlie Kirk's assassination – and why the coordinated attacks prove she's over the target. Key takeaways from the Space: Candace explained why Fort Huachuca "suddenly matters": The whistleblower (Mitch) story has been independently verified on every core point except exact civilian IDs. Mitch was on base Sept 8–9 (confirmed). High-level meeting happened Sept 9 early morning (confirmed). He was detained by MPs (confirmed by his estranged son – MPs called son as emergency contact Sept 9). Captain Neff at meeting = Adam Neff, cousin of TPUSA's Blake Neff (verified family tie). Candace: "Mitch felt VERY certain" about Brian Harpole at the Sept 9 meeting – but she's always said mis-ID on civilians is possible (50/50 on Erika Sept 8 lobby sighting pre Kolvet being exposed; now 100%). No solid alibis from implicated parties:Brian Harpole's flight records don't prove he was on the plane – gaps allow arrival. Erika's "metadata" pushed for Sept 9 – irrelevant to Sept 8 sighting. Cabot Phillips & others? Silence. The attacks (Alex Jones, Valhalla, Gary Melton, Evan Kilgore) are coordinated – wrong dates, straw-men, personal smears on Mitch's past (irrelevant to sighting). Why the panic? Fort Huachuca is U.S. Army intel hub – not random. Ties to DoD contracts (Erika's mom), suspicious planes, TPUSA insiders. Candace: "They're not afraid I'm wrong – they're afraid people are listening." This isn't "conspiracy theory." It's verified timeline + missing alibis + frantic cover-ups. The more they scream "shut it down," the more we know we're close. Charlie Kirk's death deserves real investigation – not scripted smears. @RealCandaceO is NOT carrying the torch alone. We're winning the info war because truth doesn't need coordination. The storm is here – and we're not backing down. Stay vigilant. The truth is breaking through. 🙏

Video Transcript AI Summary

Candace Owens opens by acknowledging tech challenges and explains she wants to recap the Fort Huachuca situation to counter a widespread misinformation campaign. She shares a timeline she drafted to illustrate how rapidly events unfolded after receiving Mitch’s story about a Fort Huachuca meeting. She describes her decision-making process from the night of the eighth through subsequent days as she sought to verify Mitch’s claims, including face-to-face vetting with government/military contacts and cross-checking with people who could corroborate or challenge Mitch’s account. Key narrative points Candace presents: - Mitch’s account centers on a September 8-9 sequence at Fort Huachuca involving top brass and a likely on-the-brink mission. Mitch says he saw Erica Kirk at the Candlewood Inn and Suites on September 8 and later describes a high-level meeting on September 9, with 12-13 people she described as top brass. He initially identified a person who resembled Cabot Phillips as being present and later discussed Brian Harpole’s possible presence at the base in that context. - Candace states she asked for basic vetting from a trusted government/military contact and later confirmed certain details, including that Brian Harpole’s alibi was not fully established for the morning of September 9. She notes that Erica provided flight information for Harpole, which Candace used to test Mitch’s timeline but found it did not definitively confirm an alibi for the morning. - With Mitch’s consent, Candace had Mitch on her show to present his metadata (IDs, passports) and his broader story; she maintains Mitch is a Green Beret and that “everything he said was substantially true,” though she concedes uncertainty about whether Harpole actually attended the meeting. - Candace recounts an escalation in scrutiny: Alex Jones and others amplified Mitch’s story; Barry Weiss’s “stop, stop” clip and social media attention followed. She says Ian Carroll warned of an impending lawsuit by Harpole and that someone sought to derail the discussion with manipulated allegations (e.g., stolen valor accusations). She explains she received a cease-and-desist suggestion but pressed on with vetting Mitch’s claims. - She notes that during the back-and-forth, Erica Kirk provided Harpole’s flights but not a complete, verifiable alibi for September 9 or a full record of activities. Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and Erica’s team offered an alibi (she was making dinner for Charlie Kirk); Candace sought metadata to confirm whether the text messages with Charlie Kirk occurred, but those data were still pending. - Candace emphasizes that she did not claim Erica was at Fort Huachuca on September 9; she states Mitch specifically claimed Harpole was present, and she focused on verifying that. She mentions Cabot Phillips’s possible presence was investigated and found Phillips was on vacation during the relevant dates, complicating Mitch’s claims about Cabot being the person he saw. - She discusses the broader context: the investigation has drawn in other players (Paramount Tactical, Valhalla, exes, and Mitch’s family) who offered or alleged alibis or information. She asserts she has sought to publish verifiable alibis when provided and to debunk or corroborate Mitch’s story with available evidence. She asserts she would publish Erica’s alibi if provided with receipts or a verifiable text chain showing Charlie Kirk’s communications. - Candace acknowledges the debate about whether the Fort Huachuca discussion constitutes an assassination planning meeting, clarifying that she has not claimed Erica Kirk attended that meeting, only that Mitch said someone resembling Cabot Phillips and Brian Harpole were involved in the broader Fort Huachuca-related events. She notes that Harrisons and others push back on the inference that the Fort Huachuca episode proves an assassination plot, and she respects a range of views on the matter. - She reports ongoing efforts: contacting Brian Harpole multiple times for a direct alibi for the morning of September 9; continuing to request Erica’s complete alibi and metadata; engaging Turning Point USA for clarifications; and aiming to verify or refute Mitch’s account through primary sources (base personnel, flight logs, official records). - Candace highlights the general sentiment from viewers and participants: there is a strong urge for transparency and credible evidence, and a belief that those connected to TPUSA and its affiliates should provide clear, simple alibis if they care about debunking or clarifying Mitch’s claims. Several participants stress that the investigation should stay focused on Charlie Kirk’s murder and whether Mitch’s Fort Huachuca timeline intersects with that event, rather than spiraling into personal allegations or MeToo-era rumors. Input from participants and their positions: - Harrison Faulkner: Questions the significance of the Fort Huachuca meeting, asking what the actual claim is and what proof would entail. He noted that even if Mitch’s story has proof, the core question remains: what is the conclusion or inference about Charlie Kirk’s murder? - Morgan Ariel: Affirms she remains on board with the investigation while expressing reservations about Mitch’s credibility. Emphasizes the need to assess Mitch’s claims against credible evidence and to avoid conflating personal accusations with the core investigative goals. - Myron: Supports Candace’s approach, endorsing investigative rigor, considering that Mitch may have been misrepresented by informants, and highlighting the importance of corroborating facts with base personnel and official records. - Ian Carroll: Recaps interactions with “Paramount Tactical” and others warning of potential pushback or attempts to manipulate Mitch’s narrative. Notes Ben Shapiro/Andrew Colbert’s involvement and expresses concern about behind-the-scenes pressure. He emphasizes seeking a straightforward alibi from Harpole and Erica. - Isabella: Asks about Morgan’s involvement and notes the potential for coordinated messaging around Mitch’s case. Seeks clarity on positions of exes and allies in the narrative. - Diligent Denizen: Urges rigorous curiosity and accountability, questioning how to prove negatives and seeking direct, verifiable evidence (e.g., alibi confirmations, flight logs, phone/metadatum trails). Argues for open, transparent sourcing and discourages character attacks without solid receipts. - Suleiman: Asks about the feasibility of proving negative alibis and how to confirm absence from a location when no direct evidence exists; underscores the need for a robust evidentiary trail. - Mel: Brings perspective from personal military life, pressing for straightforward evidence (alibis) and criticizing what she perceives as “half-hearted debunkings” or distractions (e.g., focus on exes) that divert from the Charlie Kirk case. - Ryan and other attendees: Echo appreciation for Candace’s investigative work, urge Turning Point to provide clear accountability, and emphasize public trust concerns regarding TPUSA’s handling of the Fort Huachuca matter and Charlie Kirk’s murder investigation. Candace closes by acknowledging the ongoing, crowdsourced nature of the investigation, the need for receipts and verifiable alibis, and her commitment to continuing to pursue the truth. She reiterates that if Erica or Cabot provide solid alibis with verifiable evidence, she will publish them; if Mitch’s account is proven inaccurate, she will acknowledge it and adjust accordingly. She teases additional explosive reporting on related topics, including Tyler Robinson, and states she will be back with more on this case.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Cool. Amazing. I'm going to try to Harrison, I'm gonna add you right now. Let me just figure out. I'm gonna try to get through all this tech stuff early on because it's just not my strong suit. Usually, Mark is doing this stuff for me. And there are some people that I definitely want to make sure are added on as speakers. Just trying to okay. There's a lot of people on. Let me get through these requests. Okay. Good button. Good button. I did wanna make sure. I don't know if Morgan Ariel is in here, but I wanted to make sure that she was on as well. I'll come back to these. I didn't know I could do a cohost option either, so you guys have to forgive me because I'm not the best at this. Okay. I do want to start by just before I add every speaker. I think right now we only have Harrison, but I do want to add a lot more people. Especially, Harrison, I'm glad that you could join because I do want to hear your perspective on things from the Infowars standpoint. So I just wanna start by recapping everything that happened with Fort Huachuca. I think that that's sorry. I'm gonna add two more people here. Diligent. I'm gonna add you. Nice to meet you. Myron, I'm gonna go ahead and add you. I'm going to add Ryan here. Okay. Just gonna do that for now, and then we can just just get started. Okay. So, yeah, the first thing I wanna do is just to make sure that everybody understands what the Fort Huachuca story is and why people are so fired up about it because obviously I appreciate that not everybody watches my podcast. And there has been just such an aggressive, I would describe it as a misinformation campaign. A lot of people that are chasing rabbits has nothing to do with what we discussed on the show. And I do think it's important for people to also have the clarity of how quickly this all unfolded. So I did create this little timeline, which I just jotted down because if I make one mistake, then the internet jumps down my throat. It's weird. When you hear how this all transpired, you're going to recognize that it all happened very quickly and very aggressively. So, I have told the story on my podcast. I hate that, this is just the reality of how it happened. Okay? So it was a holy day of obligation and I did my podcast. Obviously, we do not normally go to mass in the evenings on a Monday. I think it was Monday. I think it was Monday the eighth. And we went, I literally jumped off air on my podcast, ran to mass. And for whatever reason, maybe because it was just later in the day, I didn't do my usual prayer, meaning that I normally start my prayers with gratitude, what I'm grateful for, fighting for everyone in the family. And this time for whatever reason, I just went with just basically pleading for a missing piece and saying, you know, essentially, like everyone recognizes that there is something very wrong with this Charlie Kirk story, but I just feel like there's, a small piece of this thing missing. And I'm just deeply praying for a missing piece. I just want you guys to know that was truly the backstory. I then go home after mass, sitting in my bed, and, I open my laptop. And there are literally 50,000 emails in my tips box. That's the old box. That's even more tips. That's the old inbox. And one just pops in, and it's from a woman. And she just writes, I really think that you should call my friend Mitch. He has a story that you're gonna wanna hear. Okay? I never just, when someone drops a number, randomly call them. Obviously, usually email back and I'll say, Please give me some indication of this or that. I don't know what came over me, but I was like, with this being answered prayer. And I pick up the phone and I call Mitch. And he's kind of startled. I don't think he was just maybe with this friend. And he's like, I can't believe I'm speaking to Candace Owens. And he then proceeds to tell me the story of how he was at Fort Huachuca Air Base dealing with an issue that happened thirty five years ago when he discovered a cartel tunnel. And happened to, and I want to be very clear here because this is important, there were only two people that he mentioned to me on the phone and he felt absolutely certain that he saw them. Okay? Said on the evening of the eighth, he saw who he then learned later on was Erica Kirk. He saw her at the Candlewood Inn and Suites on September 8. She was with a younger guy who looked like he was in special forces. He talks about his watch. And the bigger thing for me was that the next day he said that he saw this meeting, that he accidentally stumbled upon what must have been a very important top brass meeting. Essentially described it as, like, there were 12 to thirteen o sixes, and you don't see that much unless it's a very important meeting. And he described the meeting in military terms. The way that I understood it was basically, this is, like, final hands on deck. We're about to go on, and there's gonna be a mission. And he stumbled into this building by a long set of circumstances. He was going to get a coffee. He didn't realize that JTF had gotten back together. He struck up a conversation because he recognized the patch of the tenth Mountain Brigade. And eventually they tell him, oh yeah, we're actually using this random off-site building. We're back together. It's now JTF Southern Border. And that's how he walked in. And at that moment, he was talking to people at the front desk. He saw Brian Harpole walking out of this meeting with somebody. And I'll tell you when we started talking about Mark Amade, but he initially did not contact me about Mark Amade or Cabot Phillips. It was I recognized Erica Kirk on September 8 leaving the Candlewood Inn Suites on the base, and I recognized Brian Harpole, on the ninth, the morning of the ninth. The meeting was concluding at 07:30AM. Now, obviously, because the September 9, the way that he described it was first and foremost, like, this is like we're about to do a mission. It's the day before Charlie Kirk dies. There's been a lot of speculation about Brian Harpole. He definitively has lied about things, which are on my list. He lied about, what they did to prepare for Charlie speaking, kinda showed the messages. He was a bit weird about that. I was I was going, okay. That's really the most compelling piece for me is like Brian Hartpull because I'm running in my head. Okay. Obviously, the Erika thing could be interesting, but that's on the eighth. Maybe Erika was with Dan Flood. I mean, she has security. Is Fort Huachuca is kind of in their, you know, the Phoenix backyard? Maybe she's there for a different reason, picking something up. Her mother's sick. Her mother works in defense. Like, my mindset was just the Brian Harpole thing is the most compelling piece for me because I think he's been acting weird. And obviously I was not gonna just assume that I should have him on the show before I went through some basic fact checks. I ran it up to some person that I trust very much that is in government, that is in the military, asked him to vet the story. I mean, I was basically up all night dealing with this because I was going, oh my gosh, what if this is the answered prayer? And we are about to be able to assert definitively that Brian Harpole was there. So I did those sort of basic checks. And then it was December 9. And I just told the story of what Mitch had told me. I did not mention Erica's name. That's very important because I did not, again, think that that was necessarily relevant to the meeting that had happened on the ninth. And I wanted to speak about Brian Harpole, and I just said it was a blonde girl. Anyways, that's the ninth. On December 10 is the very next day is when Erika sat down with Harrison Faulkner on Fox News and she addressed conspiracy theorists as sick and said that she wanted them to stop. And then suddenly I'm trending and people are like, well, she's basically saying that you need to stop. And I was like, okay, that's just weird. Then the next day on the eleventh is when Barry Weiss used the snippet of the now infamous stop, just stop, which the TikTokers went very crazy on. And I was like, okay, that is very that was specifically obviously about me. It's Barry Weiss said, the podcaster Candace Owens. And it kind of backfired, I would say, on the internet. And, suddenly, the next thing I knew, Erica and I had a date to meet on that Monday. So that was Thursday. That's the stop just just stop snippet. Friday, I had no show. Sunday, I wanna tell you this part because this is important, on December 14, I received a text message from Ian Carroll. I hope he is in this chat. I'd like him to jump in in case I get anything wrong here. But the text message was to me and my producer, and he was like, hey. Like, I have something for you guys that I need to discuss. It's pretty urgent. When I got around to calling Ian, he told me that basically he had received information from someone. He didn't wanna give me the name of the person and that definitively Brian Harpole was preparing some huge lawsuit against me. And I was like, that's really weird. And I think he said some big Texas lawsuit. I don't know what he But basically it was like, it's a big lawsuit and you know, you're gonna wanna be careful talking about this. And I was like, okay. Well, that just can't be accurate because that's not how lawsuits work. I know about lawsuits. And I said, I think someone's intentionally giving you bad information to try to scare me from talking about the Fort Huachuca thing anymore because I hadn't yet hosted Mitch to tell a story. But I had indicated that, like, I might do more with Mitch or I might pass him off to Ian Carroll. Next thing you know, Ian Carroll's getting a phone call and told that I'm about to get sued for mentioning Brian Hartwell. So I thought that was, like, a little weird. And I basically said to Ian, I think, yeah, intentionally somebody gave you bad information. You first have to start with the cease and desist, and I don't factually know if what Mitch said was wrong. That ends. Monday is when Eric and I obviously had the sit down for four and a half hours and Turning Point kind of hosted a q and a, which I thought was unfair and against the rules, I will say, because we agreed to not speak about anything. But that went on. Obviously, on the Tuesday, I came back and I oh, actually, let's go back to the name of Erica because this is also relevant. During that meeting, I did not bring up the Fort Huachuca thing because I, first and foremost needed to continue vetting various aspects of it. But also I have Brian Harpole's number. And so I was just gonna text Brian Harpole directly. But it is worth saying that during that interview, Erica gave me Brian Harpole's flights and said, like, you know, I know that you mentioned that you thought Brian Harpole was at this interview. Here are his flights. Now you guys would later see those flights because Alex Jones then mysteriously has these flights. I took the flights from her. I thought it was interesting because I didn't bring up Fort Huachuca and I wasn't intending to bring up bring up Fort Huachuca and I hadn't mentioned Erica on the show. And I looked at them and I said, Oh, well, this is not an alibi because the meeting ended at 07:30AM and planes that left Fort Huachuca were back in Texas. Actually, the SAM plane, as we know, went straight to Texas. And I think Brian Harpold's flight left at like 03:42 or something in the afternoon in Texas. So I was like, this does actually does not, conflict with the idea that he could have been leaving a meeting at 07:30AM. So it's a pretty short flight to Texas. So I, I said that and that was it. And I said, but thank you for giving me this because now I can tell people, that I have these flights and also that he doesn't yet have an alibi for that morning. I just wanted to mention that because I feel like that's important. Anyways, obviously when we went back on air on Tuesday, I recapped very I was tired and just kind of went through kind of the high points or the things that we had discussed. It was a very long meeting. On Wednesday, we broke the story about Charlie's car and that we actually had exclusive photos of what the inside of the car looked like. On Thursday, I made the decision to have Mitch on my show. And the reason why we made that decision is because we were then working in the background to verify other aspects of his story and we were able to do that. I now felt, beyond confident. He had sent me all of his metadata. He had sent me, as you guys already saw, his ID cards, his former passports, his new passports. He even sent me now I can't say that this Mexican person was in the cartel, but, you know, his story was that he was being hunted by the cartel. He certainly had court documents documenting that, that a Spanish person had broken into his home and whatever had happened. So I believed him. I believed his story. I knew that he was a Green Beret. I told you I verified that information right away, and I knew that he had stumbled upon this meeting. And he thought this is why they were pulling him aside. They may have thought something else, but it was substantially true. Everything he said was substantially true. Whether or not he saw Brian Harpole, I don't really know. Right? Now, of course, the decision to have him on, I was aware that I could not say to him. I felt that that would have been super inauthentic if I was like, hey, tell your story, but, like, let's not talk about the fact that you think a 100% that you saw Erika. That would have just been inauthentic. And I feel like people know that I don't know. You guys would have just sussed that out in four seconds. So I understood obviously that we were opening a can of worms because people were going to be compelled obviously by the fact that potentially Erica Kirk was on the base the evening before, if you will, on September 8. But again, my main thing was Brian Harpole. During that time, as we were vetting his story, he described the congressman. He thought he was pretty certain that it was a congressman in some description. And he described him what he looked like, glasses, about the age, and he said the height was five nine. So we were sending him photos of congressmen that we thought could fit the bill just so you guys know this. And he was like, no. No. No. No. No. We sent him Amaday, and he's like, this person looks very familiar. Like, this could be the person. Like, have you looked into his story? Like, do you think that this, like, this could be the guy? Like, this is like he's just the first person that really looks like the guy. And he said, is he five nine? And I Googled that, and it said he was five nine. I actually think Google's wrong on that. I think his height is wrong. I will say that now. But it's important for you to know that he did not initially come to us with Amade. We sent him photos. It was just Erica and Brian Harpole. Okay. So we have him on, obviously, and he says both of the names. And what happened thereafter is what I can only describe as like an explosion. I get contacted from somebody, who's in DC and they were very concerned and thought maybe somebody was feeding me bad information. And I was kind of interested in the phone call, not gonna name the person, but was basically like, you know, worried about your security and things like that. And I was like, I think we're good. Like, you know, we're just kind of vetting the story. Then on the twentieth, and this is very interesting, these two YouTubers, Valhalla and Paramount Tactical, reach out to Mitch. And they're being super nice to him. And they're saying, or one of them said, and I don't wanna mix them up, but we have the video of it because Mitch is predisposed to paranoia And he recorded them. And I'm gonna drop the conversations. I'm happy to drop them after this live. They're so nice to him. This is on December 20. And like, you know, they're not questioning whether or not he was in the special forces. They're not saying anything weird. And they're actually saying to him that I may be under foreign influence. I'm like, okay. These guys, are clearly not good guys. Or actually the twentieth is when he first told me that they had reached out to him and wanted him on his podcast. It might've been the twenty first that they called him. I'll clear that up. But between the twentieth and the twenty second is when they are suddenly calling him and they're like, Oh, yeah, we're just concerned about Candace. Okay. Yeah. And you're gonna see in a couple of days, he loses his mind and suddenly speaking to exes and baby mamas like he's Jerry Springer, but that was the nature of their phone call. So I'm like, okay, that's weird. I don't know these guys. And then on the twenty second, I get another phone call from Ian Carroll. Oh, he's here. I'm gonna add you, Ian. Add a speaker. I get another phone call from Ian Carroll. And this time Ian is like totally freaked, like freaked as in like very concerned, because obviously, like I have a relationship with Ian Carroll and to some degree, he respects Valhalla. And he's like, look, I have this friend who's in the military. He has a YouTube channel. And he basically runs me through and he's like basically saying that he wants to talk to me. And it was kind of said to me in a way that was like, if you don't kind of take this rope, like, and jump off of this Mitch train, like, what's gonna come out about Mitch is gonna be explosive, and you're gonna, like, go down on the ship. That's essentially the vibe that Valhalla was giving to Ian Carroll and basically like kind of demanding to get on the phone with me. And I was like, and then he starts talking about first, he said stolen valor. Like, he was like, he was never a Green Beret. I was like, he absolutely was a Green Beret. I sent that out the chain of the government. Like, that's just not true. And it felt to me like they were clearly being quite aggressive with Ian on the phone demanding to speak to me, demanding that I allow them onto my platform, talking about his, like, ex wives. I was like, I don't care about any of this. And I said to Ian, this seems to me like they're trying to distract me with stupid stuff. Like, if he has something that is concrete that, like, Mitch somehow defrauded me or lied and did like, definitively was not a green beret, then please just have him email it to me. And I said, and if he emails that to me, I will deal with it immediately. And I also made it clear to Ian that because they were like, oh, then, like, she could get in trouble for fraud because she raised money for this guy and he wasn't even, like, a green beret. I was like, first off, he never asked me to raise money for him. So the idea that he was doing this sort of fraud me for money, that came out naturally when I was live. I said I would do a give, send, go because I said people were gonna start digging up things. Like, just had a feeling like I thought it would be other people, but I just felt like, oh, let's look, raise money for him. He had a tough life, whatever. And I had had that court paperwork of what he was going through. So that was natural. And not only that, but the very next day, which I will show on my show this week, sent me, Mitch sent me an email the day after I started the GiveSendGo. The morning after he sent me and Skylar an email and said, thank you so much for raising money, but I do not want to accept this money from you. And he was very self deprecating. He was like, I'm just a fat, ugly man and I just wanted to help. You know, and I don't deserve this. Like at least they don't deserve this in the public. And then I called him and I was like, you know, Mitch is just kind of stressful. Like I don't want to figure out how to like give people back all this money. And he was like, how about this? If the tip that I gave you proves fruitful, like if it's actually Ryan Harpole or it's Erica, then I will take the money. Otherwise, I don't want it. So he was never trying to get money from me. That whole, he's a fraud. He was trying to steal like, none of that is real. It's just completely made up. And again, I will drop the receipts of exactly when he emailed me the morning after. So, yeah, that's what I said to Ian, and I was like, I just don't care about anything about his background at all. I wanna know if they have anything about him not being Green Beret. I will obviously post an update and say this guy completely tricked me with his metadata and everything. They were unwilling to do that. They did not want to do that. And so that's when they started, I guess, talking to his estranged son from twenty years ago. I don't know. I don't know because I knew that it was intentional trying to pull you. Like, they wanna bring you down in mud so that you don't go forward, and you have to just focus on the facts. So that is the backstory of Fort Huachuca. We all then know what happens next, and Alex Jones jumps into the fray. He's talking about Mitch's history. He's putting out all this information. Mark Amadeh did, I do wanna say as an update, I scrubbed through looking for roll calls, and then somebody indicated to me that they see him in his chair. He missed the roll call for some reason, but early on in the video, I agree it does look like Mark Amadeh. So that might be it could be him, and we're looking for somebody else who looks like Mark Amade. And I also think his height is wrong on Google. I don't think he looks like he's five nine. So Mark Amade might be completely, like, off the hook on that. And, he wasn't the person that Mitch initially said we gave him that photo. Now the Cabot Phillips thing is also very interesting. I don't really care about, like, you know, Mitch has a strange relationship with the son. Like, I'm not Mori. I'm not here to bring families back together. But I tried to debunk him. I thought that was very easy to be able to debunk him with Cabot Phillips because Cabot Phillips, he has a daily show at The Daily Wire. I think he does it maybe three times a week or something. The Morning Wire, obviously, worked at the Daily Wire. And I was like, well, that's pretty simple. If you're saying that Cabot Phillips was here in Arizona, he actually lives here in Nashville and he has a show. Let me just go find him on his show. Well, it also turns out that Cabot Phillips from September 4 all the way through to September 10 until September 11 took a vacation and he was not a show. So when I realized that I did the right thing, I messaged Cabot Phillips. I sent him two messages asking if he could just answer whether or not he was there because I don't wanna throw like any shade his way. I had sent him, just to get to the Cabot Phillips bit, I had sent Mitch multiple, photos of guys like this person I thought maybe Dan Flood. This is like, No. No. No. No. I gave him no context but saw that Cabot Phillips was trending. And I had no idea he was one of Erica's exes. I sent him the photo and he's like, that's the guy. That's the guy that was with her. And again, I'm now relying on Mitch's memory. I don't know what his facial recognition software is. If it's like mine, terrible. It's Okay? I can meet someone like five times and still not place their faces. But if it was my husband, he can meet someone once and he's like, that's him. We saw him at the airport in New Jersey. You don't remember? And I'm like, of course, I don't remember. Some people have it, some people don't. So I just wanted to try to confirm it. Cabot Phillips did not respond to me. Okay. He's not you can say he's not required to respond to me. That's fine. I'm giving you the information. I would probably respond, like, just because it's such an easy thing to do, But that was interesting. I was compelled by that. He said that he thought the person was potentially a pilot or would have had pilots in his family because Mitch said, I'm a watch guy and I recognized his watch and it's a watch that pilots wear. It's digital. It had a yellow button, whatever, whatever. Well, there's never been anything publicly about Cabot being in the military. So I was like, that seems wrong to me. And then sure enough, dug up a post that his grandfather was, I don't know, like, awarded high honors in the military, almost an air force guy. So I was like, okay. Well, that's another, like, interesting thing that's happening. I would like to look further into that. Now in terms of people saying that, you know, Erica doesn't owe you an alibi, I didn't ask Erica for an alibi. So when suddenly I realized that Paramount Tactical, was speaking with Andrew Colbert and she was providing an alibi to Andrew Colbert, well then suddenly now if you're gonna provide an alibi, then let's provide an alibi. Like, you know what I'm saying? I'm happy to just, like, communicate whatever that alibi is. I never demanded it privately. I didn't demand it in her face. And, I still don't even if she had said, yeah. Was at Fort Huachu. I was at a hotel, and I was dropping off a package, that doesn't necessarily put her at the meeting the next day. But Mitch did say that the person who he thinks looks like Cabot Phillips was at that meeting the next day. So, obviously, that's interesting. Like, obviously, if we're investigating this, we should just like, we could check it off the list and move on. I have messaged Brian Harpole, just so you guys know, thus far, I wanna say four times, at least three times asking him. Again, we can't say he was willing to give his flights, but doesn't wanna also just give his metadata or a picture or something they took a text message at that time to clear his name. You either wanna give an alibi or you don't wanna give an alibi. You either are saying, I don't owe you an alibi. I don't wanna answer at all. But if you're gonna do something halfway, then you should provide a full alibi. Now I will say that I had some communication. I did message also once the thing exploded with Andrew Colvet because he's just getting on my nerves. Like really, I have been so nice, in terms of what I had told the public about things that Andrew Colvet told me. He's starting to like a little bit play with the bull. And, we're getting real close. We're getting real close to me just saying, if you guys really think that I have not been fair, you will really recognize how fair I have been, if he keeps pressing me. And I felt very pushed by that Paramount tactical thing. These people are lunatics, blah blah blah. It's like, bro, send me a text. And I could have shut it down immediately, but you're like, I'm assuming you're also the person talking to Andrew I mean, speaking to Alex because Alex did say on his show, but he spoke to Turning Point USA people and, like, he had Brian Harpole's flight. So it's pretty obvious. It seems like they're working behind the scenes, and that's annoying me. It's annoying me a lot, actually. Anyways, so once I saw that, Andrew Colbert was speaking with Paramount Tactical and being, I don't know, I guess, sort of denigrating what we were doing, I then was like, okay. Let me text someone more responsible at Turning Point USA and ask, hey. Do you guys wanna give me an alibi? So once I put Andrew Andrew Colbett, and the COO in a chat, and I was like, hey. Just figured we could have a direct line, and you can just give me Erica's alibi, and I'd be happy to publish it because I'm not interested in, like, one on someone's name. I just wanna get to the truth. That conversation was had yesterday, and they did give me, an indication of what she was doing, which was making dinner for Charlie. I have asked for metadata to show that, that it was, you know, Charlie that she was texting, and I'm still waiting for that. So, the last conversation I had with them, I think that was yesterday, Sunday Sunday at around 01:00PM ish, my time central, I think. And, they said that Erica got busy with the kids and that they were going to get me something. So I'm still waiting on that just so you guys know that I have been responsible and speaking to the people directly trying to get the information. Now, obviously, Sam, I very much agree with you, and I'm gonna let you jump in here. Actually, let's start with Harrison because I would love to hear his side. I think it's it's you know, for the most part, he's done a lot of great work. He has not been feeding us a Fed slop and telling us that Charlie had a magic neck. And it's good to hear from people who disagree with us. So Harrison, if you want to unmute yourself and jump in, that would be great. Speaker 1: Yeah, thanks for having me. I guess my whole thing is why does this meeting even matter? Like what is the actual claim that's being made here? That's been my confusion the whole point, the whole time is like, okay, let's say that there's absolute proof, photographic evidence that everything Mitch Snow says is true. Like who cares? I mean, what is that proof? What is the actual accusation? Who do you think was conspiring with who to do what? And I think, you know, obviously the name of the episode was, you know, the day before Charlie Kirk was murdered. The insinuation is that this was a assassination planning meeting, which I don't even see any evidence of that. And then people I'm arguing with online are saying, no, no, this has nothing to do with the assassination. Yeah. So, yeah, I guess, you know, if the space is why this matters, why does Fort Huachuca even matter? Like, what is the claim being made? I still don't even understand that. Speaker 0: So it matters because why would Brian Harpole be on Fort Huachuca at all? Right? It matters because he's giving an alibi, which means he doesn't wanna be associated. Like it could have easily not mattered, kind of to speak to your credit. He could have been like, was at Fort Huachuca with my brother. And my brother's in the military. I was dropping off some food. Okay. Like that could have been then suddenly a dead end. That would have been nothing. Now because Mitch had described this as a top secret meeting in an off building and had described this as top brass at the Pentagon and said that these sorts of meetings, and I am forgetting the military term, are when you're just about to embark on a mission. I know I sound really uneducated, but military guys will sound better saying that. It was compelling. Like, okay, like I said, Brian Harpole was acting funny. He's been acting weird. He's been telling verifiable lies. And he cared enough to present an alibi, meaning he didn't want people to think he was there. Right? So if you to give someone an alibi, it's because you don't want people to think that you're An alibi is not needed if there's nothing to hide. So that's why it matters. I think that's why it matters. And the reaction, this reaction, rather than being forthcoming, is why it suddenly feels like, okay, this is important because no one's acting normal. No one's just like, oh yeah, cool. He was there. It also is, as we have now learned, it's an intel base. He was telling the truth about exactly what building it was. I didn't name the building on my show because I didn't I wasn't sure if that would be like a national security problem, but it just happened to be that JTF was borrowing that off-site building. And it was supposed to be a top secret meeting for those purposes. Somebody that was involved in blacking out the windows has sent us a tip. Again, it's how people are reacting to the meeting that lets us know that it's important. Speaker 1: Okay. Mean, I I guess Speaker 0: the hotel, I never said it was important. Like I said, my perspective was there's a thousand different reasons that she could have been at that base. Her mother has a contract or had a contract, has a contract with the DOD. Erica has been open about her mother's ties to the military in the past. She actually an interview and said that she moved to, Arizona because her mother had a contract with the military. So, again, weird thing is when Andrew's like, Erica wasn't in some fort as if he's never heard of Fort Huachuca. His brother is in the military. His brother is a captain Curtis Colvet. His first cousin is captain Robert Colvet. So that kind of a language is why I've named this why it suddenly really matters. Right? It was sort of one episode. I didn't exactly dedicate a whole series to it. The reaction has been so almost like violently obsessed that the public is now going, oh, okay, well, it feels like there's something here. I think that's just sort of our natural instinct. Speaker 1: Okay. I mean, I think if you're saying that somebody is somewhere and they weren't there, then providing the alibi is not in and of itself suspicious. If the alibi is not confirmed, I guess you can be suspicious of that. But again, I still, there's still not an answer. Like, okay, let's just say you're right. Let's just say that absolutely they were there. What does that prove? What is the accusation? Because what it sounds like, and I mean, what the insinuation obviously is, is that this was a planning meeting for the assassination and the people there were had pre knowledge of the assassination and they were therefore in on it. So I think that if you are making that accusation, which in effect you are, right? You're in effect saying, okay, Erica Kirk and the head of TPOS A security were at this pre assassination I didn't planning say Speaker 0: Erica was there. So you guys have to stop repeating that. Erica was never at that meeting. And that's another thing. I've never said Erica was at the meeting. Mitch has never said Erica was at that meeting. There was never an indication she was at that meeting. She wasn't even he did not see her on September 9. It was Brian Harpole who was at that meeting. To my knowledge, Brian Harpole, I I don't know why he would be at an intel base, with at a meeting with Top Brass. And what I can tell you is if he was there, Turning Point doesn't know he was there, according to Erica and Justin Streiff, who I sat down for four and a half hours. So if Turning Point has him on their payroll and they've outright purchased a security firm and they don't know what he's doing on an intel base, yeah, it matters. And we don't need to know the conclusion to follow the clues here that something's wrong. That there's this fashionable thing where people are always like, well, what's the final thing you're saying? We don't know the final thing that we're saying because that's not how an investigation works. Well, do have to follow the thing that's the lie. We have to follow, okay, you know, this guy said he was here, he wasn't. What does that mean? I don't know what it means yet. I know what it means yet. What I'm saying is the reaction of this is not normal. Brian Harpol shouldn't be on an intel base if Turning Point doesn't know about it. And he's presented an alibi that doesn't actually cover where he was, but he felt it necessary to give an alibi. So I don't know. Interesting. And I think we have a right to think. So if that's Okay. So cool, I'm just gonna let somebody else jump in right here. Just I think is that okay, Harrison? Or do you wanna just have a final thought there? Speaker 1: Sure. I I just okay. So Erica Kirk was not there. You don't you don't believe that Erica Kirk was there at all? Speaker 0: She wasn't there on the ninth. She was not seen on the ninth. It's not about whether I believe she was there. She wasn't seen on the ninth. That was never said. He never said it. I never said it. Speaker 1: Okay. But she was seen on the eighth? Speaker 0: Yes. And he and not at the Intel meeting, not in the Intel, you know, headquarters or whatever building they were using. She was not seen with the top brass, nothing like that. Speaker 1: Okay. So okay. So the the pre assassination planning meeting happened on the morning of the ninth. She was seen in the area on the afternoon of the eighth, but those were unrelated? She just happened to be there? Speaker 0: Unrelated because of the person she was with. Speaker 2: Mhmm. Speaker 0: He believes looks like Cabot Phillips. He did see that person at the meeting on the ninth. Speaker 1: Okay. So so, again, so you you are saying that basically these people were there to conspire to kill Charlie Kirk. Right? Speaker 0: And and you can keep saying what you're saying or you can listen to what I'm saying. But if you wanna just say what you're saying, just say it and don't put it behind you're saying. Just say, hey. I'm Harrison and I'm saying. Right? That's easier, I think. Speaker 1: What do say? Hi. I'm Harrison. What I'm saying is that nobody is that in two months, nobody is going to remember the name Mitch Snow or Fort Huachuca, and this is not gonna go anywhere, and that, this is a nothing burger. I I just think it's an absolute nothing burger that's not gonna lead anywhere. I mean, maybe I'm wrong, you know, you can prove me wrong. But again, my whole thing has always been that this devolves into this question of like, was he there? Was he not there? And the whole time, I'm just going, what does it matter? If the conclusion is that he's a complete liar, it's the exact same outcome as proving that these people were actually there because so far, haven't connected it to the assassination in any way whatsoever, except that maybe this guy thinks that he saw people that are around Charlie Kirk, and and my whole point is, obviously, the insinuation is, I mean, again, when you're saying Erica Kirk was there, but not actually there on the day, but in the area, but not because of the assassination meeting, but it's like, okay, clearly the insinuation is that these people had something to do with the assassination and you can make that claim or not or pretend that you are, but or pretend that you're not, but you obviously are, but, like, that's all I don't I don't really care about any of that. Speaker 0: Thanks, man. Thank Thank you. Let's skip somebody. Speaker 3: Think, you Speaker 0: know, just for you to say something clearly and obviously and obviously and clearly doesn't make it clear or obvious. Okay. I'm following this investigation. Charlie was assassinated. I'm gonna take every step, and I'm gonna say what I know at the exact time that I know it. So I cannot say that it was definitely an assassination meeting. I can say that I have a feeling about this meeting, that if if it is in fact Brian Harpole there and he's lying about that, then that's not good. Not a good thing because there's no reason to lie unless you have something to hide. But thank you so much, for your feedback. I appreciate that, and hope to speak, in the future. I am going to, allow Ian, did you wanna jump in here? Speaker 2: I'd be happy to, but depends on what you want to talk about. I had to jump in late. I was in a different meeting when I got some text messages of like, Yo, yo, get in here. Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. I was just mentioning I was giving the timeline and just telling people, when you and I had the call, and you were kinda just trying to give me a heads up about, you know, Valhalla have wanted Valhalla, think it was Valhalla, right, that wanted to speak with me, about Mitch and that his backstory was stolen Valor. I wasn't sure if I got something wrong, but I thought it was Valhalla. Right? Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, there's been a lot of people who've been trying to get ahold of you. I'm like a regular conduit for people trying to get ahold of you. You know how Yeah. It Speaker 4: Exactly. Speaker 2: But yeah, definitely there's been it was once things started to fire up, people were starting to talk about, like, what they saw as holes in Mitch's story. Yeah. And it's been very interesting to watch how that has evolved on channels like Paramount Tactical, especially. Speaker 0: Yeah. And now we are it is I don't know if it's evolving or devolving. Yeah. Speaker 2: I do wanna say, though, real quick, though, is that I was expecting Valhalla to go way more off the rail. Like, he definitely voiced his opinion when he did his episode with all of his evidence. He definitely came out hot and voiced his opinion, but I I actually was pleasantly surprised by how Valhalla did that in the sense that based on what he knew and the source that he had, he condemned what he saw as what Mitch was and what Mitch's actions were, but he also didn't like, I I felt I felt glad that he didn't overstep himself and kinda blow up on you too hard and try to, like, over extrapolate what he was showing, but I also have been watching what other people have been bringing out about Mitch since then that seemed to make me question whether what Valhalla had was the whole story. So I'm just kinda sitting back Speaker 4: and watching. Speaker 0: And that was also another thing. Think that's a good point, Ian. It was like people that were pretending that they were speaking to like his, like, baby mamas and ex his son that he hasn't spoken to since he was two, by the way. So if he hasn't spoken to him since he was two, the implication is his son knows his father through his mother. That's, like, what happens when you don't speak to your father since you were two. But, it is interesting that they didn't do any background checks on the women. Like Yep. Who then I saw and I didn't wanna, again, get dragged down in the mud, but, like, they had, you know, had accused a few men, But they stayed away from that. It was like, no. No. No. No. Like, this is what's out there about Mitch. And that's why I was saying to you, like, was like, this is this feels to me like a way to distract from what I basically am trying to do, which is I feel like I'm the one who's actually trying to debunk Mitch. Like, going to Bryan Harpole, going to Turning Point USA and saying, hey. Like, give me something. I'm happy for this to be wrong. Whereas everyone else seems to just be trying to, distract. I do wanna let, let's go to let's do Ryan and then Isabella, and then we'll do Diligent Denizen. I think that's right. Speaker 2: Diligent, actually, his app kicked him down. You should re add him. I did. Yeah. Cool. Speaker 5: Yeah. Gennis, I just wanna I'm just jumping in here listening right now, so I'm gonna hang out for a minute, and then I'll jump in at the end. Speaker 0: Cool. Awesome. Isabella, did you wanna jump in here? Speaker 6: Yeah. Hi. Thanks for having me up here. I you know, it's been a lot of debate going on with this, and I think Harrison did bring up some good points. And I've been really interested in the drama between you and Evan. And I'm curious, did more like, so Morgan and Evan are friends, and did she just randomly reach out to you and let you know this? Because that's a little shady on her part with Evan. Speaker 0: No. She didn't. She actually did it by accident. So Mhmm. She you know, I don't know her at all. I think she's had a pretty good opinion about stuff and she's definitely kind of been one of the early people on saying how she was treated when she started talking about Israel. And so I think what happened was we should definitely separate Evan from Israel, Evan from Morgan. Morgan kind of it seemed weird because it was like nothing happened and then they both kind of wrote these statements. And you don't actually have to break up with anybody on x that you can just not agree with something. I don't know. Never feel like the need to write a very long statement if I disagree with something, a commentator that I'm listening to. I'm like, listen to it. Yeah. Yeah. I don't agree with that. Don't agree with that. I'm never like, for a long time, I've really loved Matt Walsh with his take. It's like, I don't I know. So I think it seemed a little extra to people on the outside. Speaker 7: That was the thing is. Speaker 0: And it was at the same time. And so I messaged her and I was like, I follow you. You could just message me if you thought some part of the story wasn't real. And I sent her some docs about the, cartel person. I was like, he sent me so many docs that, like, his story is real. Like, I don't you know, it's this happened. Here are the medals he received. I obviously did my due diligence. And, she said, thank you. And then she was sending me a clip of, it was just a clip of Paramount Tactical. And I think she was sending it because she was like, oh, look what his son is saying. But actually, I found it interesting because the son then confirmed the story, like that he was on Fort Washouka Air Base. And she didn't realize that when she screen recorded, her text messages were coming in from Evan. And he was like saying what he was gonna post. So it was, I think it just honestly an innocent mistake. But I was then like, okay, It looks weird that you both posted this, and now it looks like you're kind of coordinating it. And I think people felt it was coordinated because it's not a natural thing to do. Now, Evan, I I went the reason I say I would separate him is just because, like, he's just lying. Like, he's like, she's this has been debunked. It hasn't been debunked. He's, like, defending Alex Jones and saying, oh, Alex Jones did say that, you know, you met your husband through, PJW. I'm like, no. He didn't say that. So he seems like he's being intentionally dishonest about stuff. She kinda just made one statement. Timing was a bit weird. Yeah. That's kind of how that happened. Speaker 6: Interesting. Okay. And then something else, like, with what Evan is claiming, it kinda just reminds me of, you know, there's a man that's coming into prominence, and then you see a bunch of women come out. Me too. It's like, okay. Maybe Mitch is not maybe he's not correct. Maybe he's lying, but he does seem to have more evidence supporting what he's saying than these random ex like, disgruntled women. So I'm not saying that it's incorrect, that they're wrong, but I feel like we should be remembering that, hey, this is what these women do and the government will get behind them and kind of push them to make, to say these me too things to discredit people. Speaker 0: Right. And the thing is, and correct me if I'm wrong, but like there were no convictions. So it feels like we're getting involved in somebody's divorce and somebody's like, man. Like, it's just not my business. Speaker 6: It's always messy. Speaker 0: It's not my business. I'm sorry. And I'm sorry to say they don't care, but I don't care. I care about we killed Charlie Kirk. I care about whether what he said he saw in Fort Huachu goes real or not. And every other piece of the story checked out. Like, I got the military police report, so this just feels like mud. You know? And I'm look. Like I said to Ian, I said, look. If if your buddy Gary wants to do, like, you know, becoming Mitch nine seasons, let him do it. You know? Everybody everybody has to follow, like, what what is their passionate life? And I was like, I just personally don't care. And so I encourage everybody who is feeling passionately against Mitch, to go down that rabbit hole. I am focused on what happened that day, and thus far, nothing Mitch has said to me has not checked out. And even they won't even admit that they, like, you know, lied about some stuff in the past. Like, when Ian was contacted, they were like, it's stolen Valor. He wasn't a Green Beret. And then they, like, casually admitted on their show, okay. No. He was a green beret. But I'm embarrassed that he was a green beret because look at these female and their allegations, but we're not gonna mention all the allegations that exist with these women. Like, that just feels like it does feel like me too, and I'm just not interested in it. Morgan just actually jumped on. So I do wanna add her as a speaker. And Morgan, you sort of missed maybe some of this, but I did just sort of run people through, what happened and kind of said, like, I kind of view what you and Evan did to be different. And, you know, I think for everybody, it was just sort of the timing of you guys and the style of needing to announce it, I think, was a bit different. And I think that's why you kind of got the reaction that you did. I just wanted to get the opportunity to have the floor and say what you wanted to. Morgan? Speaker 7: Hi. Didn't know that you were talking to me. I'm sorry. How are you? Yeah. How is everything? Good. Speaker 0: How are you? Speaker 7: Yeah. I'm good. Thanks for giving me the floor because there's been so much freaking drama in the last couple of days and everybody I feel has been trying to pit us against one another for some reason. I keep reiterating, I have no issues with Candace. I am still 100% on board with the investigation. Have my reservations about Mitch and I feel like I should be able to voice those concerns. And I know that a lot of people don't care about his past or his history, or I don't even want to say only his history because currently it's my understanding that he does have open cases. But when we're looking at somebody's credibility, how can we find them credible if the only thing that we have to take is their word for something? And right now it's he said, she said. He said that he saw people there and we can only take his word for it. And when you have every single person in his life, not only the exes but his children who he's never had custody of any of them, they all say the same thing that he's a pathological liar. I have trouble trusting an individual like that and I just want to make sure that we stay on track in finding out what happened to Charlie Kirk. Speaker 0: Yeah. And so I think what I would offer back is that's what we have been doing. So rather than speaking to his son, I contacted people on the base. You know? Like, okay, he said that Neff, that somebody named Neff, is which what he said initially in contacting me, captain Neff, was the one who questioned him. So rather than speaking to his son from twenty two years ago, I think the people would say, why don't you speak to somebody who's on Fort Huachuca base now and see if there's a captain Neff there? And that's what we did. And we confirmed that captain Neff and the tenth brigade was there. He said it was in an off-site building, a JTF off-site building. We spoke to people at the base, they told us this is the exact building. Here's where it is in the map, and they are borrowing the space. He told us that this incident happened, and the bomb dogs were called. So I made an effort and successfully got the police report. That's how we verify whether or he's pathological liar, is by verifying what he said. Right? And so that's why, as I said before you jumped on, I reached out to the people that were involved. I reached out to Brian Harpole three times. He wanted to give an alibi in the sense of, like, giving flights for 03:42 that afternoon. Okay. So why what's stopping you from giving us what you're doing at 07:30AM? Right? Like, that kind of is what's weird. It's like you give half an alibi that doesn't matter, but you don't want to give the full thing. You don't want to just message me and say, hey, just so you know, that wasn't me. So that's what we're actually doing is trying to verify the last thing, which is just really his memory. He did tell the truth. He told the truth about everything that happened that morning. And so the last thing is, does he have a good facial memory? And thus far we've not been able to And I am in the process, as I said, of speaking with Turning Point USA. We haven't yet gotten a clean answer from people who have indicated that they do want to give an alibi, right? Because Andrew Colvet is messaging Paramount tactical with an alibi. Well, I'm your girl. I'm the only one I think that's trying to debunk Mitch. Because I'm like, give me your alibi and I will post it. Yeah, I think that's I guess my concern Speaker 7: is like, Okay, so if they don't provide any alibis, then what happens? Does this just stay open ended and then it keeps being the main focus? Speaker 0: Well, they did. That's the point. And that's why I named this why it suddenly really matters. Right? So if they had, like, kind of stayed out of it and we're like, I'm not even gonna answer because it's so stupid. Then we're like, okay, well, maybe he's just wrong. And that would be what it was. He would just be wrong. He wouldn't be a liar because he was where he said he was, you know, and the base the people that were there were there and Captain Neff was whatever. But, they did give an alibi. So they do care. Right? They they cared enough to give it to, like, obscure YouTubers, which is kind of random. Like, it's like, okay. Why are you wielding and dealing like, if Andrew Colbert did not get caught live orchestrating an alibi, it shows that Erica cared because she's showing her metadata. So wouldn't the common sense thing to be if you care that much rather than going through obscure YouTubers? Wouldn't you just go direct to Candice and be like, hey, saw you did an episode on this. Here's the information you're looking for. They all have a direct line to me. I would have published it immediately. Speaker 7: Right. Wonder if, say, let's Erica does provide something, people going to be, are they going to accept that from her? Speaker 0: I would. And I end it. My goal is not to look stupid, right? So like if she gives me an alibi and she's like, here's where I was, why would I not just instantly be like, hey, here, it wasn't her. Thanks, Mitch. It was a different blonde. We've been very open to that. And I said that a thousand times on the show. You either have really good memory when you see faces or you have a bad memory like I do when I see faces. I don't know Mitch, so I don't know. But he he was pretty detail oriented about the watch and and little things. And, I think beyond anything else, reaction when Andrew Colbett is wheeling and dealing behind the scenes, it then makes things really compelling. Right? If he didn't get caught on that live, I probably, would be neutral. I mean, I did one episode on this. Everybody's acting like I've done, like, becoming Brigitte. You know what I mean? Like, we've been investigating the Charlie thing. We've covered so many things. I do one episode on Mitch, and everyone's like, no. Like, we gotta talk to his high school classmates. We gotta talk I was like, dude. Like like, everybody calms down. I'm getting threats of lawsuits in the background. Like, Ian was like, you know, I gotta talk to you before your next episode, is what his text was because they were putting pressure on him to get me to stop reporting on this. They didn't they didn't want me to even interview Mitch. So I just find that to be compelling. Like, what is this panic about? Especially because you could end it in four seconds by just messaging me and being like, here you go. Speaker 7: Yeah. Well, they never are forthcoming. I mean, that's the problem with Turning Point this far. Yeah. And they could put a lot of things to rest, but they keep gaslighting. So Yeah. Hopefully, they do. I still I Speaker 8: also too. Speaker 7: Mitch, but that that's just where I'm at with it. And yeah. Speaker 0: Yeah. That's fine. Yeah. And I wanna say, like, I'm totally chill with that. Like, I I by the way, like, if I was running, like, The Bachelor show, I would get it. Like, you know what? But I'm asking people to trust me enough to have done my due diligence to tell you that he was where he says he was. And that I Speaker 7: do wanna interject and say, I do believe that he's there, that he was there. Speaker 0: I can't figure out for what other reason. Because he didn't ask to come on my show. He didn't ask me for money. Like, he literally had his friend send me an email saying, like, this is something that you should know. And then I asked him to come on the show. And then I and then I randomly live said, you know, I wanted to raise money. And then he, which you missed, Morgan, said to me, I don't want the money the very next morning. And said, if a tip ends up working and it helps you solve the murder of Charlie, then sure. But I don't I don't you know, I'm not in this for money. I'm just like a fat old ugly guy. So, like, the whole idea of him doing this for money or doing this for fame just doesn't doesn't jive with the facts of how it all came about. So for me, obviously, I'm the one that's in the center dealing with him. Yeah. Do I think he's paranoid? Do I believe that he probably hasn't been the number one father in life? Sure. That's just not my business. You know? Just genuinely not my business. Speaker 7: Yeah. I don't know. I try to look at things from a biblical lens and you have to judge people by fruit. And if all your fruit is rotten, then I have trouble believing anything that you have to say. Speaker 0: Yeah. But I also think that you should judge the women the same way. Know? They have If backgrounds Speaker 7: everybody's saying the same thing and it's just one person, like you're not the victim. Speaker 0: I didn't say it was big. I'm just saying that like, you know No. No. I'm sorry. Not the victim. You know where I'm at in the Harvey Weinstein stuff? Like, were like 3,000 women and I don't think he raped a single one, so I don't accept that argument. Like, I think we just disagree on the Me Too stuff. Speaker 7: He seems like a nobody. That's different than Harvey Weinstein. Speaker 0: Oh, I just think I don't know. I just like to hear both sides of a story when it comes to allegations against men, whether they're famous or not. I just think it's like I'm pretty even on that stuff. I always have to hear both sides, but I didn't even wanna care. I didn't wanna hear Mitch's side about his ex wife. I didn't wanna hear her side about him. It's just not my business. But thank you, Morgan. I hope that clarifies everything. I'm glad that you're a part of the conversation and you have every right not to believe Mitch. Speaker 7: Yeah. Thank you. We'll see what happens. Speaker 0: Yeah. We'll see. Mel, would you like to jump into the foray? Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you so much for having me real quick. So I just wanna say, you know, I get everybody's, kinda hesitation with Mitch. Having been married to a Green Beret, having been around military my entire life, I have seen all of this, all of it. Okay? So I was a lot like you, Candice. I was like, I actually don't care. I don't care about any of the background, anything like that. All I know is that this man has made very specific allegations against very specific people with a time and a date. This is very easy to debunk. Very easy. Right? He actually, in a way, set you up that could have made you look like a fool. And now we are about two weeks out and these people are, again, using random YouTubers, funneling weird bizarre alibis kind of quasi non denials through these weirdos. Right? And we haven't gotten to the thing. To be just, hey, all you have to do is say straightforward, I was not there. I was not in Panchayas County on this date at this time. This is not complicated. And again, Candace Owens is not a random person. Okay? She's just not. She's not somebody with a small following. So people can say, well, they don't have to answer. Well, that's fine. But they clearly care. Okay? And when you have a large following and you get accused or not even accused because Candice isn't accused. But when this comes up on someone's huge following, you answer it. You just do. Okay? If you have an easy alibi, you just freaking do. I'm so sick of this pretending like, well, I don't have to answer all this crap. Right. No. Actually, you do. Okay? Sorry, but you do. Because you guys have been weird about everything from the get go. Okay? And everything about Charlie's murder is weird. Okay? I think weird is the one word that we can all agree on. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 4: Right? And now, I have looked into the NAR and Turning Point's faith and just the shaviness, the total shadiness surrounding this organization, which again is not its own organization. It is, in fact, an appendage of TPUSA, which means it is TPUSA. It's not like TPUSA action, which is its own organization. People don't I don't think really quite grasp the significance of that, of TPUSA faith TPUSA faith being an appendage of TPUSA. But so I know all of the, like, shenanigans that they've been involved in. So when I heard about this originally, was like, yeah, that sounds about right. Now, I don't quite know what that meeting means. I know Harrison wants some very hard like, wants us to make allegations and He wants us to make a mistake, you know, more than Well, anything Speaker 1: I don't I hold on. Why would I Speaker 0: want you there. Like, you know, like Speaker 1: Why would I want you to make a mistake? Speaker 4: I don't know if you want me to make a mistake, but I know you have pressed pretty hard for I want you to make a definitive statement, and nobody's ready to make that, actually. Here's what I know. These are the things I know. I presented those to you last night, and then you came back at me with, what? So you're gonna accuse me of being paid for? Which was really bizarre to me because I felt like I was pretty patient and not accusatory at all. Regardless, I'm not even going go into that, but Speaker 1: Well, okay. I'll I'll I'll go into it for a second. You said that I was pretending to forget that Charlie Kirk was moving away from Israel. And I was saying the weird thing was by me saying, look, I don't get what this whole meeting is even supposed to be about or why it would be suspicious or how it connects to the assassination in any way whatsoever. And that is somehow extrapolated to be I somehow think that the official story of Charlie Kirk's murder is true. I'm saying I don't I didn't Speaker 0: say that. Don't know Harrison, you can just keep watching the show. Like, you're not required to, like you know, like, if you're not sure where it's gonna go, like, that's kind of the point of just, like, we're we're all kind of investigating this together. You know what I mean? We've been crowdsourcing this investigation. We have smaller pieces, and the smaller pieces become bigger pieces. Right. You know? Do I know what it means that there are these, like, little flecks of what looks like there's plastic on the ground of, the vehicle that Charlie was carried in after? No. It could mean somebody smashed their phone. It could mean somebody smashed their sunglasses. It could be one of the theories is like, oh, look at the ADS B exploded. I don't know. You're like demanding. What is it? It's like, I don't know. I just got the picture, man. Like, you know? And so I think your energy is just, frankly, and I'm not trying to be judgmental, but like, it's a little lame, I guess is a nice way to say it. It's just pretty lame to like try to put this like unnecessary pressure or make it seem like it's weird that we have questions about why Brian Harpole would be on an intel base if he's actually there. Like, what what do you get? What do you mean? It's it's giving Ben Shapiro. You know? You never wanna give Ben Shapiro. Just wait. You just wanna wait and, like, see where it lands. If I start making allegations that are factually untrue or if I don't recant something, if I go somewhere and it ends up being a dead end, then I would understand that energy. Like, if, like, you know, Erica did hand me her perfect alibi and I was like, well, I'm not gonna say it because I just wanna put it out there. But I was actually really hesitant to put Mitch on the show because I, you know, I wanted he he was like 100% certain it was Erica. He was 100% certain it was Brian Harpold, you know? But I wanted to be very careful about how I went about things. And so I think that we just don't appreciate, like, people that actually care and are standing up to the feds right now unnecessarily being sort of tossed to the wolves by, like, your perspective, which is like, if you don't have a perfect narrative and it's not neat and buttoned down, then don't speak. Like, no, guys. Keep speaking. Keep asking questions. And if you're on this listening right now, you're gonna get things wrong and that's okay. Just you have the courage to say you're wrong. And that's what I do. I always do that. I just say, you know what? I thought this, it's actually wrong. Let's pivot. Speaker 1: Okay. I mean, again, I don't know where you're getting this idea that I'm saying don't do research or anything like that. I am confused why it's been a week of talking about this meeting. Still am not Speaker 0: You guys are the ones Speaker 1: talking about it. Because it's been I've been Speaker 0: off air for eight days. Speaker 1: Been three months. I know. I know. But it's been I know. Speaker 0: For eight days. You guys have been on Infowars calling me a fraud, this, that, saying my husband's an MI six. Like, what do you mean? Why is this a conversation? Because you won't let it go. I had him on the show. That was it. You know, we were investigating things behind the scenes, like, you know, reaching out. Like, he had already reached out to people for alibis before I even had him on. You know, like, hey. This guy said this, whatever. And then all of a sudden, you guys every day are obsessing over it and making up lies. Like, you guys are the reason it's big. Like, respectfully, like, is the work of you and Alex Jones and Paramount Tactical and baby mamas from February. Like, you know, you guys made it a thing. You guys you guys made Speaker 2: fest fest. You know I mean? Can I can I hop in and mediate real quick with most of it? Because I think firstly, I think that a lot of people come at this journalism from different angles because and, obviously, I can't speak for either of you, but Harrison does more of reporting on what's already happened, and Candice tends to make her career out of reporting on trying to figure out what is the next end of the story. And you guys, you know, you both stray into both lanes. But, also, I wanna draw the distinction that Harrison has not been making all the same claim all the same claims as Alex all the time. Alex is definitely a distinct voice from Harrison, and I've always really respected Harrison. I'm not saying that I I actually disagree with him on this take, but but I I do think that this he's not the whole InfoWars crew, and the whole InfoWars crew isn't Alex Jones. And Harrison's reporting hasn't been the same as Alex this whole Speaker 0: time. Right. Speaker 2: But, also, I think there might be a little bit of coming at investigations from different angles from the nature of the journalism that you guys both do. Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. I think we've I think we've Speaker 4: been pretty fair. Personally, I definitely have been fair as far as, like, not conflating Harrison and and Alex. And for like reasons I can't because I feel like I've been pretty straightforward about why I think the Fort Huachuca thing is important. I do think that things were happening behind Charlie's back. Yeah. We know that he delegated a lot. So even if you don't think like, oh, this is and again, I actually don't think this was a, like, murder planning session. I actually think that, personally, and I'm going to just throw it out there, I think that something happened in Korea. I think that there were weird things that happened in Korea. We do know that pastor Son was arrested the day after Charlie leaves Korea. I I think that there were some weird things that were going on, and I think that Charlie wanted to maybe step back from the role that TP USA faith was playing in this kind of global foreign policy, you know, forward apparatus that that his organization was being used for. Speaker 0: And by the way, can tell you guys that, like, Rob McCoy and Charlie like, Charlie did not love Rob McCoy. Whole speech about him being his pastor, he had voiced his concerns about Rob McCoy. And so, again, the the the broader consideration here is that Turning Point USA is just telling a lot of lies. And you don't tell a lot of lies. The whole world got behind Turning Point USA when Charlie got shot. Like, every there wasn't a single person who did not was not rooting for Turning Point USA on September 11. Okay? And now we're at a place where it actually feels like the whole world is rooting against Turning Point USA. Right? What if the TikTokers are not liking Erica? The people online are not liking Erica. They feel like I mean, that I'm sorry, but are we going to pretend that that whole AmFest thing wasn't just like weird? Like we're popping up tents of like where somebody died? Like, I don't know. That's weird. And so, let's respect the public that we're recognizing something's off and we want to know what it is that is off. And Andrew Colvet is definitely off. Okay? Like, he is, like, off the chains. There have been just way too many lies, and there would be no reason to lie when you have the whole world on your side rooting for you. Why are you lying? Speaker 8: Well, since you mentioned Andrew Colbert, Candace, if I may jump in. Sure. And to address Harrison, one of the things that I keep in mind throughout this entire investigation is in an investigation, details matter. But you don't know what details matter until you investigate them. And as an outside observer on this particular story, the Fort Huachuca story, all of a sudden I've been airdropped this detail that one of the top members of Charlie Kirk's security detail is at an army intelligence base the day before Charlie's assassinated. Now that's a detail. I don't know what it means. I don't know if it means anything. I don't know if it's important or not important, but that's a detail. That is a definite detail because Brian Harpol's job is to protect Charlie Kirk. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 8: That's his job. That's his job as one of the top members of the security detail is to protect Charlie Kirk, who the next day was assassinated. So, like, this is an important detail. What is one of the top members of the security detail doing at an army intelligence base that a before? It might not mean anything, but maybe it means something. What does it mean? I don't know. I have to investigate it. Now how does Andrew Colbert come into this? I'm reminded of the fact that he told you, Candace, that you and Tucker were on some list and possibly in danger. Well so now I'm thinking in my mind, well, maybe he was at some sort of, security briefing. Maybe they had some intel that that that people were in danger. Maybe maybe that's what he was doing there. Like, I don't know. But it has to be investigated. It has to be sussed out. It could it could mean something. It might not mean anything. But just just to address Harrison, and I like Harrison. Harrison's been good to me. No problem with him there. So that's what I'm just from my own perspective, as an outside observer, I've been airdropped this story, this detail, which has now mushroomed. It's like a big mushroom cloud now for several days. It's run wild, people on all sides fighting over it. It's become a thing. And now I have to grapple with this thing. Does it mean anything? Does it not mean anything? How can I verify it? And I'm at the mercy of Mitch's recollection. I'm at the mercy of the TPUSA folks, Erica Cabot, and Brian Harpole. And I'm faced with a situation now where they've turned it into something bigger than it needed to be if it indeed is nothing. Speaker 0: If it's nothing, Speaker 8: all they had to do was debunk it. And not only that, but, like, they could have, like, slam dunked the ball in your face, Candace, and made you look silly and stupid, and they left that money on the table. Right. And for the people who said, well, I'm not gonna dig they don't need to dignify this. They already dignified this by giving half assed non debunking debunkings. Didn't ask them to do that. They did that. They made this more important and relevant than it needed to be. I didn't ask for them to do that. So now as an outside observer, I have to grapple with like, okay. You made it bigger than it had to be. Like, what does that mean? I don't know if it means anything, but now it's a thing. Now it's a thing that Speaker 0: I have to deal with. How everyone feels. Like, you are voicing exactly how everybody feels. We didn't know what it was gonna lead to, and I was, like, I mean, I couldn't have been more deferential in saying that this could literally lead to nothing. But, like, because of this weird prayer and the way it came in, I think that we should follow it. The reaction has now made this feel so crucial. And it again, why you do not need to wheel and deal behind the scenes, Andrew Colbat. And if Erica, as she did, is going to hand me Brian Harpole's alibi, then they care to clarify it. Right? If you care to clarify his alibi, then get the rest of his alibi. Right? What what is the halfway? What is the halfway? Here's his flights for the evening or the late afternoon, but we don't know about 07:30. And I did ask that question, by the way. That just reminds me. I asked that to Turning Point USA. When I had the conversation on the phone yesterday, I said, you know, what's up with Brian Harpole? I've messaged. I'm happy to like debunk this, but this guy is certain he saw Brian Harpole. And they said, they told me that there was no basically, the relationship between Brian Harpole and them had soured. That's what they told me. And they didn't just tell me that yesterday. I wanna be clear. They also told me that when I sat across from Erica on the fifteenth. So there's not open communication right now between Brian Harpole and Turning Point USA. Yet, they did feel it necessary to give us flights for the fifteenth. Well, if your perspective and I found Turning Point USA and I'm going, okay. Well, he's not answering this question. Don't you think they should wanna know if he was there that morning? Shouldn't they be like, hey, where the heck were you? You were on our payroll actually. And you were supposed to be with us. And so now we require to know where you are. And so there's also this nonstop lack of urgency with Turning Point USA, a lack of caring. Like they almost think like the details are funny. They don't care. I think that's how the public feels. They certainly don't care, about any of this. Like, why else would you have a tent? Like, it's quite morbid. It felt like a seance to see that tent up and people taking selfies under it. And I think that that disturbs people. I think that there has been something spiritually disturbing about a lot of the decisions and communications that have been coming out of Turning Point USA. So thank you, Sam, because I think that you really just hit the nail on the head there in terms of why this suddenly feels very important when we were all willing to accept. I did I mean, I did one episode on this, guys. This wasn't like it wasn't like crazy. Speaker 8: Married to this, Candace. I'm not married to this guy. I'm not married to this theory. Like, if it's nothing, then it's nothing. Right? And and I suspect I still suspect that it it there's a good chance it could be there's a really good chance it could be nothing. And I'm gonna need from personally, I'm gonna need really big receipts to believe it. But, like, but if Brian Harpole's job is to protect Charlie, which he failed at, by the way, you know, like, let's just be real honest. He failed. The team failed. They felt if I'm TP USA, like like, where like, how did you guys feel this? And if Brian Harpole's attention was split or he was elsewhere, his head was elsewhere, he was going to meetings elsewhere, he's doing other stuff, I wanna know that. Speaker 0: Right. I totally agree. Myron, I'm gonna let you jump in here too. I see your hand is raised. Speaker 3: Yeah, sure. Can you guys hear me good or am I Yeah. Coming just real, I'll be very brief here. We're all here for the same reason, right? We all don't believe the official narrative is someone that used to work for the federal government and understands how investigations work. The official narrative has created more questions than answers. And again, it's kudos to you for going out there and trying to find those answers. And I think it's very important that people understand that when you're doing investigations, you're gonna go down many different roads. Right? You're gonna talk to bad informants that might have ulterior motives. You're gonna talk to people that are gonna give you misleading information. You're gonna do a record check here, and it might lead you somewhere that was completely not relevant to what's going on. Like, the thing that sucks here is that you're doing this investigation with millions of people watching you, and they're gonna, you know, try to say, oh, well, you didn't do this and you didn't do that, blah blah blah. The benefit, right, of being a criminal investigator a lot of the times is we work in the shadows, we do our investigation, we go down many different holes, then we come down with an indictment and arrest warrant after we connect everything. Unfortunately, right, for you, Candice, you have a bunch of critics that wanna sit there and say, we're not doing this right. You're not doing that right. I think you've done a great job of, you know, trying to find the truth, and people are gonna criticize and talk shit. And I think we're all here for the same reasons. The official narrative doesn't add up. They haven't been transparent, and that's why people are doing their own independent investigation. The federal government's failed with being transparent with the people, and the people don't trust the government anymore. This is really an l for the g. So, keep doing what you're doing. I know people are gonna hate, and I do I think your heart's in the right place, and you're really trying to find answers here. And, yeah, there's gonna be, you know, roads that sometimes don't lead where it's supposed to go or roads that may be questionable. But I think talking to everybody and trying to get the full picture and being transparent about it is the way to go. So keep doing what you're doing. Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I appreciate that. And, it's hard. I mean, we have a really small team. I think people forget, like, there's four of us and it's so much work and we're investigating every every lead. And there have been so many that have led nowhere, by the way. I mean, you can imagine you're getting 50,000 emails and, some people just wanna write hate stuff. Some people are giving you tips and we're building those pictures in the backgrounds. We we have so many leads that are still being worked on from a long time ago. And we have to get on the phone with people and we have to ask for verification and we have to get When we get paperwork, we then have to verify if the paperwork is real because they don't have expertise. And then I present something and I misspeak and I say E4 instead of five or six, whatever. And the next thing you know, you get a thousand emails of people telling you like you're an idiot. It's hard. And people also, I think forget, and this is not like a woe is me pity party, but like Charlie was my friend. Like, I went through a very real stage of grief. I'm still going through it in many ways because I don't know what happens. Like there's something that feels very unresolved about it. He just shouldn't have been taken out like that. Okay? And their anger, which I think you guys have seen that last week or whatever, like to see people like Ben Shapiro get on stage and pretend they were his friend. Like, you don't know what that does to me spiritually. Like, I just wanna fight. Like, I wanna physically get into a fight. That is like it's just not okay. And there's something that is so grotesque about it at its core. There is something that is it is so say it's almost satanic. Right? I look at politics now and it makes me wanna vomit. Like to to realize what they turned him into after, like they did not view this man as a human being. They did not care about Charlie at all. It was like he either was gonna get them a check or he wasn't. Know? And that even for me, like the ick I get from turning points, like you know that that man did not like that man. So what are you doing? Is this really just about who writes you a check and gives you they can just buy a friendship with Charlie? It angers me and I still have to contend with that anger, that upset, and also trying to, okay, let me divert my energy into this investigation and try and figure it out. So I do ask you guys to just recognize that, you know, like, to recognize that there's a lot going on. And I will always if I get something wrong, which is what I was open to doing, like I said to Ian, I was like, if you want to send me an email and he has the smoking gun through, but he wasn't even a green beret, I will run it and I will own it. But that's not the case. And so it just feels like heady. Like, if you're gonna use your energy, like, we don't need you finding his exes, man. Like, we really could use your help. Like, you know, like. Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean, look, professional criminal investigators don't get it right a lot of the times. There's a reason why a lot of cases don't get solved. You know, people don't get indicted. Don't get charged. It's not easy to run an investigation. It's even harder to do it with a million people trying to Monday morning quarterback everything that you do and criticize every single thing that you do. So I totally understand coming from that world myself. So look, you know, you're trying to find the truth. I think you've been good about transparently. If you make a mistake, you correct it. And you know, one of the negatives is you're out there in front of everyone. So people are gonna give their and that's the negative. Speaker 0: Yep. You're right. Ryan, we'll go to you, and then we'll go to Diligent Denizen. Speaker 5: Yeah. No. I just wanna tell you thank you, Candace, for everything that you're doing. You know, we all appreciate, you know, at least one person out there Speaker 0: that's been doing a tremendous You've crushing it. You've been absolutely crushing it. Speaker 5: Well, thank you. You know? And I think that the the thing that upsets, I think, most Americans is the fact that you're doing the job that we expect Turning Point to be doing. Right? Like, this was Charlie's organization, and you're the one out here asking the questions. And they're almost seem like they're just content with whatever FedSlop narrative we get, and they're ready to move on and and get the party started and go on to the next event and the next whatever. And it makes us it makes me feel anyways like that turning point and the amount of people that are going after and attacking you for trying to just find answers makes me think that Turning Point's something much bigger, that it feels like it's a giant money laundering operation, that it's a political machine, and that Charlie was just a pawn. Right? That he almost didn't even know everything that was going on within his own organization. It got way too big for one man to follow everything, and some shady shit seems like it was going on behind the scenes. And I think there's a lot of key players that were involved in some shady shit that are more they're incentivized to just kinda sweep this under the rug and buy the Fed not slob narrative because they don't want any attention shined on whatever shady shit that they they were doing, and I think that's why Charlie was putting Doge together, and I'll end it there. Speaker 0: And I I got a really big tip on that Doge investigation. I am, I think there was something there. I think, if this pans out and it looks like it is panning out, Charlie found discovered that there was a lot of money that was missing. And, again, I'm trying to encourage this person to to speak out. So, again, one of the balls that's been in the air that we I've been slowly working on, but you are you're I think all of our instincts have been correct. There's a lot more Speaker 3: going to the sky. Speaker 0: And there's just been a lot of people that have been basically saying to us, you know, these cheap tactics to even question anything means that, like, you are not accept you have to just accept No. Speaker 3: Because I'm making it work for everything. Speaker 0: Myron, you gotta turn yourself off. You're, mute on. I can mute your mic, actually. That's a great ad. Yeah. So it it it definitely feels really weird. Diligent. Let's go to you, diligent Denizen. Speaker 9: Thank you. Yeah. I just you know what bothers me the most about this whole thing is the lack of curiosity. Like, here we are. We are all citizen journalists. Every single person on this stage right now describes themself as a journalist in some way, shape, or form. Right? There's no curiosity. Right? Like, when did we say here's a good example. Harrison, you posted two weeks before Charlie Kirk died that there was a credible threat against his life. Has the FBI reached out to you to ask you about that? Speaker 1: No. Speaker 0: Also, like, are you gonna tell us who that was? It feels like that might be relevant now. Speaker 9: Yeah. So so in the absence of a rigorous investigation by by the the agency, we are led to lead this investigation. That is why Fort Huachuca is so relevant. But I was gonna ask you, thank you Candace, can you tell us who who told you that? Because FBI's not asking you. Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, the person that that told me asked me not to say who they were, so I'm not gonna give up a source. Sorry. Speaker 9: Okay. That's fine. Well, well then, you know, in the absence of answers and a rigorous investigation, we are led to do that ourselves. So every credible piece of evidence that we have to follow, every trail should be exhausted before we say, oh, well, this ain't worth it. And I have seen far more energy put into discrediting the Fort Huachuca witness than I have for people actually looking into the claim itself. Like Candice said earlier, she actually called people at the base to verify whether or not the events occurred, was either at that time, where where did it happen at, etcetera. But I see all of these people. It's almost like, it's coordinated. Right? All of these people on the same two days come out and say, oh, don't listen to this guy. They apply labels. You know why we apply labels to people? That way you stop listening to them. Oh, Wahid says doesn't matter anymore because he's an abuser, because he's a fraud, because he's this, because he's that. Right? Yeah. Far more effort into discrediting that witness than there has actually been into validating the information that he's been given. Speaker 0: By the way, the best way to discredit him is to debunk his story. Like, it's like so I'm why like, don't you focus on this? You can act you hate Mitch. Do you hate who he is as a human being? Do you believe he's a pathological liar? How about proving that something that he told us was a pathological lie? Like, doesn't that just make sense? Like Speaker 9: Zero convictions. All of the people saying that he was a fraudster, that he was an abuser, whatever. I couldn't find one record, criminal record of him being convicted. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 9: Is that true? Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Right? Find it either. It they were showing no convictions. It was he said, she said. Mean, I just like full character assassination. Speaker 9: And let's divorce court that he didn't get to he didn't get to tell his piece in. Speaker 0: It was very me It was very me too. And I'm sorry to say it. And, like, when grown men are doing the me too shit, I just have no energy for it. I'm just like, alright, guys. Like, cool. Thumbs up. Like, I'm glad you found, like, his classmates in middle school or whatever. But, like, could you use some of that male energy towards actually like, if you think he's all of these things, the best thing to do would be, like, help us prove that he's lying on the thing that we care about, which is the Charlie Kirk assassination. You know? And no one has thus far done that, and, he has not changed his story. So I am inclined to follow this, especially because we now know that Erica and Andrew Colbat and Brian Harpole do care enough to to offer up, you know, some parsed alibis of of sorts. Speaker 9: But they didn't offer up they didn't refute being there. This is, I think, is very important point. Not one of the people, including congressman Amadai with his statement, actually directly said, I was not in Arizona or at Fort Huachuca Huachuca at this time on this day. Not not a single one of them have denied it. Speaker 0: Yeah. And I did, I don't know if you were on earlier when I said that, like, when Mitch first contacted me, he never said Mark Amity. He gave a description of the man and he said it was a congressman. And then I gave him, you know, faces and he was like, this looks like the guy, like Mark Amity. Think I Mark Amity is the only one that at least attempted to give an actual timeframe that was relevant and he gave the footage. And I do think it kind of looks like him. It's not definitive, but it does kind of look like him that's sitting in the chair when someone gave me the time point. So I do wanna to be at least like he gave us something. You know what I mean? But regarding the two people that he contacted me about, Ryan Harpole and Erica, I I find it strange that they went behind the scenes when they had a direct communication with me. Like, if you care enough, why wouldn't you just text me and I could shut it down immediately? Like, I don't I don't Speaker 9: We just lost your sound. Speaker 0: Thank you. Yeah. I think I'm still trying to understand, like, what Andrew Colbett is doing. I don't understand it. I don't understand what Andrew Colbett is doing. I really don't. Speaker 9: Well, obviously, they care about the public perception of what's going on here, or they wouldn't give these half hearted third party alibis that don't really stand up under scrutiny, right? Because they do care about the perception. And the argument is, well they don't owe you any answers. They don't owe you any answers. That's right. They don't owe us any answers. But also they can deserve the scrutiny they get in return for not giving those answers. Right? The suspicion that comes with that, that's part of not giving those answers. So it's a two way exchange. Go ahead, Harrison. I see you're trying to oh, go ahead. Speaker 0: I totally agree with you on that. I do want to let me add this person to speaker. We could do about, like, ten more minutes here, because I think that we have covered all of the main points. I think now everyone understands why this Fort Watch Cooper story suddenly matters even though it was definitely not a focal point of this investigation. I do think that there is something here. I will tell you that, like, if I was to bet on it when I first had Mitch on the show, I was at fifty fifty on whether or not he saw who he said he saw. Brian and Erica in particular and Cabot Phillips as a third, which he felt I think when I asked him a percentage on Cabot Phillips, he was like 90% sure or something. Now, I would probably put it at a lot higher just based on the public reaction. It doesn't make sense to me. And Andrew Colbert is what tips me over the edge, I think. It makes no sense for him to go behind the scenes when he could just texted me and said, hey, I heard you covered this. Just wanted to give you this. Here's where Erica was and, you know, so you could update people. That doesn't make sense to me. And I do I've heard, that they are spending a lot of money on, an anti marketing campaign, if you will. I am trying to get receipts on that to see if that's true. And if that does pan out to be true, then I think we we have our answer. I just added you, Suleiman. Did you wanna say anything, or did you just wanna listen? Speaker 10: Yeah. I did wanna say something. Hopefully, my mic is working. Can you hear me? Yes. Because I'm just in a Uber. Oh, brilliant. I guess my question is this, that when it come to by the way, I'm I, first of all, appreciate the work you're doing. And also I think one of my friends is on your team But that being said one of the questions I have is in terms of Wachuca How does someone prove the negative and what I mean by that is I can't always prove where I am at all times So for example, you know, how do you prove that you're not somewhere if you don't somehow have some kind of photograph you take on the day? Like how will they be able to disprove where they were? The reason I asked that is because you can ask that by anyone. For example, Sam. I don't know where Sam was when Charlie Kirk got assassinated. So will he be able to prove it or not? We just don't know. So I guess the question is how do you prove the negative? Speaker 0: Yeah. So I think the first thing is like, just answer, right? Hey, I was not here. That would be like a nice strong start. I'm Brian Harpole, and I was definitively not there. The second thing is you would just be so surprised at how much your phone has. If you were there, then Brian Harpole would have had to have taken a flight, to, Fort Huachuca relatively early on the eighth or early on the ninth. I mean, he could if he's awake at that time, you're he's a this is supposed to be like a guy, who's doing security. He's gotta be up early. You how quickly before you roll over in bed and text somebody about something? Like, whether it's like breakfast, whatever it is, you're texting. And that is creating a timeline of everything you're doing all day. Like, if you asked me what I was doing today between, I don't know, four and six, I could look through my phone and see who I was texting at that time. And we'd be texting about something relevant to what we were doing or what we were we were about to meet up. There are so many ways that I think you could show what you were doing. But I think the first thing would be just to answer. Like, you know, it's a pretty straightforward like, I don't see the upside in Cabot Phillips not answering. There's been so much innuendo about him. People are talking about, like, his pizza tattoo. Like, you know, I don't think the energy like the energy of Ben Shapiro, I've been wondering what that's about. And so like when I saw Lisa Cabot Phillips, I was like, woah, I did not expect that turn. Because I had sent him so many people that in turning point that I thought could have fit the description. Like maybe it was someone on the security team and he was like, no, no, no. And then with no context, was like, Cabot Vilas was the guy. And I don't know. I find that to be interesting that he was off. Now Kappa could just very easily just be like, I was on vacation. Like that's seven days. Right? I mean, he was off air from the fourth until the eleventh. And hey, he's got the wrong wrong memory. And I'd be like, okay, cool. But that's a long time. Right? That's a that's a very long time that he could send us something or anything. So, yeah, I think there's a million ways, but it it would start with just denying it. You know? Like, it would be very simple, especially because it's gotten so big. And I wanna be able to do that for them. I wanna debunk it. I want it to be off of people's minds. Like, if Cabot was just, like, with his family on vacation in Scotland, I wanna be like, hey, guys. Like, Mitch, we're looking for someone that looks like Cabot. You know what I mean? And so we can focus somewhere else. Or Erica has airtight. Here's where she was. This is what she was doing. And there really are just like, you know, there's just another blonde who was on the base that day. I think that would make a lot of people feel good if they just did that. Speaker 8: And Candace, if they hadn't already made Speaker 10: in, that would it makes be sense Speaker 8: would be one thing. Right? Speaker 10: So it makes so it makes sense what you're saying in terms of if you were to provide a text, what you're proving is that you texted someone, but if you take if I mean, they're not gonna give you evidence that they took a flight to Fort Huachuca. I guess because if they did it or they didn't do it, they wouldn't provide it either way. Yeah. And I guess the reason I'm asking the question is I get the logic behind it. Like, first of all, the smart player would have been not to say anything after he started giving evidence to that green beret, it now becomes the onus' pot on you. So I understand it. I'm on your side of that perspective. Yeah. But I'm saying hypothetically speaking, let's take Erika Kirk as an example, right? Let's say she wasn't there on September 8, but she hasn't got any digital footprint. Yes, she can deny it. That's one thing. But like, no one's gonna believe it, even if she was to deny it. How do you actually provide evidence that you weren't there? Or the, because if you text someone that's not evidence because you could text from the place or from some other place, It's actually having like some kind of digital footprint Speaker 0: Yeah. Somewhere else because at the exact same they did. Like, you you might not have been on earlier, but I reached out to Turning Point again because like I said, I'm not interested in chasing rabbits that, you know, with the I wanna actually know what what's real and what's not. Yes Sunday. What's today? On Sunday. I think around 01:00PM, I got on the phone with them. I reached out on Sunday, sorry, on Saturday. Got on the phone with them sometime after mass on Saturday I mean, on Sunday. Pardon. And they were like, hey. Like, yeah. She was, like, making dinner with like, organizing or making dinner with Charlie. Like, we're gonna send you a message of, between her and Charlie speaking. And I was like, great. Amazing. I will literally update Twitter right now and say, like, Erica was making dinner with Charlie. And they send me a message, but the contact was blacked out. So I went back, obviously, and I was like, hey. Like, the contact's blacked out. Like, I don't this could be a message between, like, me and George for all I know. And I was like, do you just mind, like, just sending like, I know Charlie's number, obviously, so just, like, you know, show me the contact. And they were like, oh, we blocked it out because this it's like a pet I don't know, like a nickname that she has for Charlie or whatever. And she just didn't want you to see it. And I was like, okay, well, you can just like change the contact and just send me like, you know, send me a video of you opening it so I can see Charlie's number and tell my audience like, is confidently a text chain between Charlie and Erica. And then, they just said, look, it's Sunday. I think it was like 01:00 or something. And she's busy with the kids, but we'll we'll get you that. And so I waited. It's now been obviously more than twenty four hours. It's been like thirty that was yesterday at 1PM. Now it's 9PM on Monday and they haven't sent it to me, like just the number so I could see that it was Charlie, but I'm waiting. But there's a perfect example of how they could just easily show it. So I'm waiting for that. And if I get it, I will clarify to people that she was making dinner. And I also said to them, I don't need to show people the message either. So don't worry about his you know, whatever you call him getting out there. Like, I'm I'm happy to just, like, see it. And I think my audience trusts me enough that I would just say I saw it. So I'm still waiting for it. But that's a perfect example of how it could be done. So Speaker 10: so that so that text message you're referring to, are you saying that it would indicate her specific location? Like, she'd be like, oh, guess what, honey? I'm downstairs cooking, I don't know, roast chicken Speaker 0: for you. I'm recapping here, but it was pretty much like, hey, parking the car, like, be up there for dinner. Like, is dinner ready? Like, yeah, it's on the table now. Right? Well, if they have that and it has the date of September 8, which it had the date of September 8 and that was the communication, like dinner's on the table now, like I'll be right down or something like that. Okay. Great. And they just blacked out the contact. So I can't like I can't obviously, I can't say you guys. Like, it was a conversation it could have been a conversation between me and Mel. It could have been you know? So I was just like, could you just send that without the contact blacked out? And so that's what I'm waiting for. But that's a perfect example because, like, you can't go back in time and make that communication with Charlie. Like, who else would Charlie be messaging? Like, if I I could just see this is Charlie and his wife. And it said, like, love you or something like that. So it would be weird if Charlie was randomly texting that to somebody else, but I know his number so they could just show me his number. Speaker 10: And just one other question while I've got you here, and I think it's really important because I've been covering this, like, from the beginning, generally speaking. And you basically have like the fed position and then you kind of have your position, which is you've gone through a wide range of strands and wide range of avenues. And I guess a lot of people kind of sit somewhere maybe in the middle, maybe a bit towards you, maybe a bit towards the Fed position, whatever it may be. And from your perspective, and I kind of know what you're going to say, but just as a question, from your perspective, like where do you sit with the people who don't fully agree with maybe all the lines of investigation you're doing, but then do not, but then do question the Fed position. Like, I think a lot of people feel like there is a, there is this kind of idea that you either have to have the Fed position or you have to totally agree with you or Ian Carroll or whatever it may be. Like, where do you sit with Speaker 0: No. I I I appreciate everyone that's investigating. If you're a person who is trying to convince us that Tyler Robinson on a rooftop by himself with no help took a shot from a 30 odd six and, like, you know, Charlie ate vegetables and stopped the bullet. Like, you are just so such a useless human being. I just I really never wanna like, I never wanna see you. I don't wanna follow you. I don't wanna see a tweet from I just I want you just to be off the Internet. Like, that would be great. You know? But beyond that, if you accept that something's wrong, obviously, then, like, there's gotta be more to the story, then great. That's why there is so much variety on the Internet. And I I do think there is a level of this sort of, like, crowdsourced investigation. So, like, I don't agree with everything that, you know, Ian comes up with. He doesn't agree with everything I say. Like, I don't agree with everything Sam Parker tweets or Myron says. But the point is is like, you I'm sitting here and I'm pulling together a picture because so many different people are able to pull together different strands. And I do I I personally can say confidently that I sense that we are putting a lot of pressure on the authorities. They seem to be coming undone. There is definitively something here and they were banking on our ADHD. Like they were banking on, we're gonna throw like a memorial, we're gonna make it amazing, we're gonna give them Trump. They love Trump. He's gonna throw red meat. He's gonna say we're gonna make America great again and again, and we're gonna move on. And it actually seems to be getting bigger and snowballing. And so something has to give. And so I'm grateful for every person, no matter where you stop on the train. Like if you're like, I believe you on all this, but I don't believe this, this, this. Like, I mean, that's really what Morgan Ariel just said. Like, I don't I don't like Mitch. That's fine. Great. But, let's keep the pressure on the feds and remember that, like, we are all united in recognizing that we live in a really effed up world. Tim Dillon did a like, he made it comedic, but also, like, it was, dark comedy of, like, we feel like we all now recognize we're kind of being ruled by, like, people that are into children and people that traffic children and people that traffic weapons. And they're kind of wanting us to just like be like, oh, but like the new iPhone just dropped. Like, something this this can't go on like this. Society cannot go on like this. If we have a society that we don't protect, good people, like we don't protect decent human beings like Charlie Kirk, we don't protect our children, we're too fearful to even speak and say something, which is, I'm sorry, but we live in a world of remarkable cowardice because of what I view to be a shortage in testosterone. I find so many men to be pathetic. I really do. Like Charlie Parker was assassinated in broad daylight, you're just gonna, like, accept the Fed slap. I have no use for you. Like, I have no use for you. You're losing the society because you're still allowed to walk around breathing is what the issue is. And you get to call yourself a man. Like, why am I taking all these bullets? Thank you to the men who have stood up for me. But, like, for the men that are just, like, going going along to get a paycheck, like, I don't need you ever on the airwaves ever again. I really don't. And if if at the end of last year between Jeffrey Epstein and Charlie Kirk, if something did not stir in your spirit and make you go, what the f is going on? We have no use for you in American society or any other society, frankly. And that's how I feel. So thank you to everybody who has jumped on and had this conversation. Again, I appreciate everyone. Harrison, I appreciate you. I think we do have different styles in this and I hope that you at least hear my perspective and my heart in this and no, I'm obviously not gonna let FortWatchUka go. My husband's on an MI six. And, yeah, I don't care about Mitch's baby mamas. Beyond that, we will, you know, I'll be back. I'm off air all this week, and I'll be back next week. And I have even more explosive stories for you that we have found. We've tracked Tyler Robinson even more on that day. So it's just gonna get crazier. Thank you, guys.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - January 2, 2026 at 8:21 AM

Saved - January 2, 2026 at 1:14 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I expose a shocking link: Erika Kirk allegedly descends from the Rothstein clan and is tied to the Rothschilds, with Nicole Rothstein and Carla connected to power players, Freemasonry, AIPAC, and large-fraud networks. Redacted lineage and confusing naming hide a hidden family tree. I suggest Erika may have been planted as Charlie’s handler, pulling stock frauds, politics, and dangerous networks. I’m seeking tips to complete the Rothstein family tree.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

Video Transcript AI Summary

The video expands a web of alleged family connections around Erika Kirk, centering on the Rothstein surname and its supposed ties to the Rothschilds. The narrator notes that Erika’s exact lineage isn’t known, but if Erika and her family are Rothsteins, then they would be “connected right next to” the Rothschilds, a linkage the speaker describes as surprising and not a coincidence. The main question posed is: who is Erika Kirk? The series aims to uncover that answer, with hints that the investigation could make Erika seem analogous to a contemporary Truman Burbank. A surprising turn in the investigation is the discovery of Erika’s roommate in New York, who appears repeatedly in Erika’s videos. The roommate’s name is Nicole Rothstein, who the narrator identifies as Erika’s cousin and a constant commenter on Erika’s posts. Nicole is portrayed as coming from money, and the Rothstein name is framed as historically associated with dishonesty. A 2017 photo Erika posted shows her with two men; one is tagged Alan Rothstein, whom Erika calls her uncle. The narrator suggests this uncle might be on the mother’s side and implies a broader, obscured side of Erika’s family. Alan Rothstein is described as having been involved in significant financial crime, including defrauding a client of hundreds of thousands of dollars, spending large sums of company money, and engaging in schemes involving tens of millions in falsely claimed assets. The narration emphasizes Alan’s “sticky fingers” and associates him with a pattern of using “friend companies”—entities with little or no public history used to move money, including ill-gotten gains. The claim is that Alan owns a $13,000,000 home, implying wealth without a traceable core business. The narrative then shifts to Carla Solomon (née Fransvi), Erika’s dad’s sister, and her husband Jack David Solomon. Jack is depicted as a controversial, highly connected casino owner and corporate figure with extensive involvement in Israel-related and political circles. The list of his affiliations is long and includes leadership roles in various organizations and foundations, including the Federal Land and Development Corporation, Federal Research and Development, the United Jewish Foundation, the World Jewish Congress, and numerous chambers of commerce. He is described as holding positions related to Israel advocacy, as well as a connection to the Mormon-like “president club” and Freemasonry, with a specific reference to the B’nai B’rith as a secret society akin to Freemasonry. Jack Solomon is also portrayed as having a history of scandals, such as stock fraud, investor fraud, and casino fraud, including a period when he was removed from a CEO role. Despite these scandals, he is described as having amassed substantial wealth and wielded influence across corporate and government spheres, raising questions for the narrator about who he actually knew and the impact of those connections. The narrative then ties these threads to the Rothstein surname’s famous historical lineage, spotlighting Arnold Rothstein, a well-known 20th-century criminal who allegedly fixed the 1919 World Series by betting on Chicago to lose and using political and legal influence to escape punishment. The presenter argues that Arnold’s criminal legacy seeded later crime networks and that the broader Rothstein family may share a history of theft and corruption rather than legitimate enterprise. A central unresolved element is a supposed missing genealogical link between Arnold Rothstein and living Rothsteins, with genealogical sites allegedly redacting the names of his children. The caller invites viewers to help locate this critical link to determine whether Erika Kirk is truly connected to these historic criminals. The video ends by reiterating the provocative coincidence claim: the Rothsteins’ link to the Rothschilds appears direct and non-coincidental, prompting the closing assertion that “what looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck is probably a duck.”

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: You might not know Erika's exact family lineage, but presuming that they are Rothstein's, it's rather strange then that Rothstein shares family ties to another family, another prominent Jewish family that has been the center of many, many theories for hundreds of years and has been involved in everything from currency manipulation to economic crashes and to assassinations and everything in between, and that family would be the Rothschilds. Indeed, I was rather surprised to see that the two families are related and pretty directly because all I had to do is scroll over to the side and boom, there it was, the Rothsteins and the Rothschilds, two infamous crime families connected right next to one another. Who knows? Maybe this is all just one giant coincidence wrapped in a coincidence taped in a rigmarole, but I really don't believe in those, and I'm not comfortable just saying things are just a coincidence. I think that's a lazy excuse when too many facts aren't presenting themselves. Who is Erica Kirk? So in this series, we're going to seek to find the answer to that question. And trust me, I would not have expected that the most basic question possible was going to take us so many episodes to get to, and I most certainly did not expect that it would leave me wondering if Charlie really was a contemporary Truman Burbank. Tell me what's happening. You're part of this, aren't you? Imagine if you could make one half of your family truly obscure at best or completely indecisurable at worst. Who and what you are related to would be impossible to distinguish, and so remember that for later. We have to try taking one last look at her family, but this time not at her parents, although they might have been involved. Instead, this time we're gonna look at her roommate, which seems unexpected, but let's go. More than once, Erica Kirk has discussed how she dated no one during her five years living in New York until she met Charlie, which is outright an easily disprovable lie, but that's for later. Erica says she really didn't want to date because of the following reasons. Speaker 1: I'm not gonna ask you your personal journey, but what I will say is when I lived out here, I was here for five years. I never dated here because I saw vicariously through my roommate how terrible it was. Somehow getting drinks was the replacement of having coffee and breakfast. I personally would rather have coffee or brunch with someone than go I just I don't drink. I find it unproductive, not because I'm holier than whatever. I that's not I just don't operate that way. But I always thought it was very strange how she would go to drinks with one guy and then go to dinner with another. So it goes twofold here. So if you're expecting to marry someone that I was blessed with, like a Charlie, you have to be the type of woman that will attract a Charlie. Speaker 0: This was one of the only interesting tidbits in horribly staged interview with that broad Weiss, whatever her name is, because it made some of us go, I wonder who that roommate is that was such a bad influence. And lo and behold, after scouring Erica's various social media platforms, videos began emerging like these. And so now we can call into question who Erika Kirk really was in those five years, but once again, don't wanna get ahead of myself. And so we're gonna hone in though on who is appearing in many of these videos. And based on a bunch of comments ranging as far back as ten years ago on Erika's various accounts, we see a common thread that this same female is commenting on Erica's posts, and she just so happens to look like Erica's roommate who appears in these videos. And her name is Nicole Rothstein, and Nicole is actually not just her roommate or soulmate or best friend, whatever she calls her. Nicole is also Erica's cousin, and this is going to become a much bigger deal as we move forward. Nicole, unlike Erica at least, at face value comes from money and interesting money at that. The Rostein name is not exactly synonymous with honesty. If they were in a dictionary, those two are on the opposite ends of one another. In fact, antonyms would probably be a better way to put it. In this photo Erika posted in 2017, she is sitting next to a man whom I wager to be in his 50s and another man who's standing in front of her, who I would wager is putting the pedal to the metal, pushing 70, the late 70s that is. And at the time, and really up until recently, if you had clicked on that photo on Erika Kirk's account on Instagram, you would notice that there's someone tagged, and that someone tagged is named Alan Rothstein, who Erika says is her uncle. And this old dude, I'm presuming here is Gramps, and this uncle that she references, I can only imagine is on the mother's side and is a member of that unknown segment of Erica's family that is seemingly being obfuscated. In any case, though, when reviewing who Alan Rothstein is, I can understand why Erica may have chosen to hide that side of her family, because Allen is not as Hannah Montana says, The boy, the boy, the boy, the honest goods, the real McCoy. My goodness. Uncle Allen has been involved in several criminal operations. For instance, there is a long case file which goes into detail about how Alan defrauded someone of hundreds of thousands of dollars. He was supposed to be a consultant, but was actually just an insider, kind of like a spy, and was just getting info and using his position to spend hundreds of thousands of the company's dollars doing nothing. And Alan, if you're watching this, just want to say, That's not cool, bro. Jerk move. The document then gets deep into legal jargon, but discusses tens of millions of dollars at one point in falsely claimed assets and then goes into the realm where a lawyer might be mildly confused. At his heart, though, Alan seems to possess the sticky fingers that his namesake is so infamous for as we shall see. And lo and behold, someone who likes to pill for the proverbial cookie jar also possesses a number of what are pretty obvious, in my opinion, friend companies. I run into a ton of these in videos. They are companies with little or no website, no customer history, no definable product, and they just sit there for years and sometimes decades doing nothing. But they are convenient for running money through, especially ill gotten money, which seems to be Alan's MO. Not kidding. I was peeping through his companies, and he's got a property management company, a hedge fund, and a bunch of others, and none of them seem to actually do much. That all said, whatever Alan and his family are doing is evidently working quite well for them, I might add, As Alan, though a tool sorry, though, through a tool I use, I learned that Alan lives in a $13,000,000 home. Not bad for a guy who seems to have never really worked a job or built anything himself. And That sort of cash also speaks to who was funding Erika's cousin Nicole and possibly Erika herself while they live the expensive Manhattan life doing nothing of material value. Now, let's shove another step into the family and hit up Carla Solomon, originally Carla Fransvi. This is apparently Erica's dad's sister, so once again, a little info on the mom's side. Carla can be explained in the following words. From the YouTube commenter, Vivian Ballard three nine one five years ago, I'm not implying that she is only interested in the financial stability of men. However, it must be said that she avoids relations with impoverished men. YouTube really is a wonderful place. Thank you for that comment. In other words, Carla married a man about twenty nine years older than her by the name of Jack David Solomon, a twenty nine year age difference. Jack himself is a bit of a character. He's one of the few people who have been born in America that possesses such an immense affinity for Israel. And oh, yeah, we're going there. Jack has been a leading executive, or simply the leading executive, at a plethora of some of the largest companies on earth, many of which possess multi billion dollar evaluations and or are simply government operations. For instance, for whatever reason, he was plopped into the chairman position of the board of directors for things like Federal Land and Development Corporation for thirty six years and Federal Research and Development and Advanced Patent Technical. All sorts of things that when I'm reading it make me go, Who are you really, bro? Especially because a sort of thing like that requires power, influence, money, control, and access and gains you a lot of power, influence, money, control, and access. And for this next bit, I'm just gonna skim through some of the organizations he's been highlighted as being a member of from his death website, although I assure you there are likely many, many others. National Directory Quality Operations Foundation, 1963 to 1966. He's a sponsor of the National Hospital of Denver. He's also the co founder of the Israeli Armored Core Museum. Patron, Orr, Chadash, Orphanage Israel. Vice Chairman, California Democratic Council, 1966 to 1970. Candidate for California State, 1966. Director of the United Jewish Foundation, 1956 to 1967, committee member for the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, member of the World Affairs Council, member of the president's cabinet for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, member Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce. Oh, yeah. That would be because he was a controversial casino owner. He was also the director of the Utah Shakespearean Festival in 1999 to 2000. Seems like a weird addition. He's also the member of the American Air Museum in Britain, a foundation member, the Armed Forces Commission and Electronics Association, sounds powerful, National Aeronautics Association, International Association of Business and Professional, honorary. Benai Brith, President Club, Utah Valley State College. Yes, that's where Charlie Kirk was shot. President Club, Brigham Young University. President Club, World Jewish Congress, life. Thirty second degree Mason, Scottish Rite, life. Yeah. So a lot of things should stand out to you there. The UVU, the massive ties to Israel, the powerful committees and organizations. And I could really out for a while just about the Israel connections alone and why that's weird. But if I have to tell you that, then you've probably been living under a rock and missed the dozens of red flags I just read. But these connections do go deeper than that, so deep that Bro paid for and restored the ancient Zion's Gate And Plaza in Jerusalem, which is rather a big deal to folks over there. Needless to say, he's sort of a huge deal in that community, and he's also very clearly connected to the highest echelons of the government and business, and the people who decide if and what you shall eat. What an odd family member for Eric could have considering I was under the impression she was a Christian girl from Scottsdale, Arizona. But if this all didn't elucidate you to the fact that we are talking about some seriously connected people, like I said, he's a member of this thing called, that I can't pronounce, it's a Jewish secret society named B'nai Brith. It's a very unique organization, very secret society esque, very Freemason esque, which apparently is controversial because they claim it's antiseptic to say that they are Freemason related despite having a huge portion of their founding members actually being Freemasons as well. So take that as you may, but whatever, toss that aside. We also know from that whole blurb, Jackie, who is a thirty second degree Freemason, which should be ringing bells for everybody from the most unfamiliar with this sort of, quote unquote, world to the most familiar. The Masons are weird, weird people. I've had personal experiences with them. I'm for sure on a list of theirs. That's a story from another time. But if you're really unfamiliar, putting it as short as I can, it's an organization that is a complete secret society. It's very occult. They worship Satan, but that's a point for another time. They have been known as global manipulators for centuries. Countries have banned them because of who they are, but they are known to use their wealth and intrigue to control nations and to shape the futures of people and nations, and may or may not, definitely were, in my opinion, involved in assassinations historically and things like the planting of people into positions of power that allowed them to exert further control and influence and, you know, the everyday stuff. But I'm sure none of that should sound even remotely familiar or be ringing true for the overarching Erica Kirk story, because that'd be weird. On top of all this, Solomon's also known for some immense scandals, including stock fraud, investor fraud, casino fraud. In fact, he built a casino and then got taken out of the CEO position because of his fraudulent activities. He wasn't allowed to be in control of the company anymore. All sorts of stuff like that. And then you can go, that seems like quite the character. And yet he amassed massive fortunes and got appointed to all these big companies and was also appointed to the government to do very important roles. So it makes you wonder who he actually knew and who he actually was. But leaving those two oddball characters right in the dust, here's where things are going to get even lunier. Rostein is not only a relatively rare name, making it more than not a symbol to trace, it's also an infamous name, most especially if you're a sports aficionado, specifically baseball. Let me explain though. Long before Alan and Jack were manipulating corporations, looting the masses, and stacking it up into their $13,000,000 homes, let me reiterate, dollars 13,000,000? That's the sort of money only like a handful of a handful of people on earth possess, so what's going on there? And I think I know the answer because there is a pretty clear progenitor to the Rothstein proclivity of purloining the populace's purse. And his name was Arnold Rothstein, a Jewish criminal who, it's widely asserted, fixed the nineteen nineteen World Series. He bet over a quarter of $1,000,000, which at that time is an unprecedented fortune. Roughly $5,000,000 today, but it doesn't really factor in for the lack of mind power and what all that means. He, in essence, made the bet, the wager, that Chicago would lose the Cincinnati Red Stockings in nineteen nineteen World Series. For color on who Rothstein is, he didn't come out of nowhere. Rothstein was a longtime fixer, or in other words, cheater, as well as financier of crimes of all kinds from the least degenerate to the maximum degeneracy. But in this specific instance, with the nineteen nineteen World Series, he, through a series of payoffs and threats to, you know, people's families, ensured that the Cincinnati Rez won the people who he bet on, which is illegal for all sorts of reasons. Arnold, though, having friends in politics let me reiterate, politics, the legal system, like judges, and the police got off on all charges despite being the most obvious crime ever. Arnold was not a great guy to replicate or follow in the steps of, but he has become infamous enough that he even shows up in literature and movies, most specifically as a character of Mayor Wolfsheim in the not so great, kind of shortsighted and whip Gatsby. You can also thank Arnold for most of the crime syndicates that formed in the intervening years after his death. Yes, was shot to death, surprise, surprise. And the modern day drug and human trafficking, etcetera, of today was in large part possible because of his initial funding of such crime networks. So, yeah, really an interesting guy in that family tree. But all in all, he's just an awful dude. But importantly, he's a Rothstein. So here I'm gonna say something. There is a missing link, I think it's one of the most critical links possible. I hope you all can assist me here with it. Arnold Rothstein, likely resulting from his profession of, you know, murdering people and causing crime, kept it under wraps if and how many children he had and where they lived. And so it's been very hard to really connect to who he is. But if you look down the family tree and at some of his siblings and all that, you will notice that there are more Rothsteins that continue on the family name. But they all do something very interesting across genealogy sites, and the genealogy sites themselves might be in on this. And the thing they do is that they redact the children of these initial Rothsteins. And so that makes it very hard, dare I say impossible, for us to know who are actually Rothsteins today and if they're 100% connected to one another. And so I asked you guys to help me out here to try and find these missing links to start building this family tree so we can officially connect Erica Kirk to these Rothsteins and to these known criminals and justice system manipulators, just generally bad people. And I imagine that they probably keep this quiet and are trying to hide their identities, especially if Erica Kirk is one of them, because it would be pretty obvious that we shouldn't trust these people as there are generations of Rothsteins who have committed all of these heinous crimes, and to think that they would be in such positions of power today might cause the American people to go, We don't really want that, do we? But I don't want to yap too much, but we have this very obvious missing link, and it's hard to bridge those sorts of things when you cover up and when the family covers up all this information. But there's one thing the family can't account for, and I think it's rather ironic, that the Rothsteins have seemingly never built anything of value themselves, but they certainly do know how to steal it. And so you have the original Rothstein stealing, the Solomon guy stealing, and then you have Alan Rothstein also stealing and committing fraud. It seems like the real family trait in the family heirloom is the ability to thieve and commit crimes and to get away with it enough to profit. Once again, let me reiterate $13,000,000 house, yet he's never built a business. Digressing though and getting back to the main track, it seems bizarre then that we have all these missing links, and then we've also got Erika Kirk who won't really discuss her mom's side, past her mom and the missing names and the using the incorrect Swedish terms and the fact that there aren't any pictures of really her parents' face. And on that note, there is one video that exists that people speculate might be her grandparents, and it's on screen now. In any case, though, it does make it increasingly difficult to trace her. But digressing, again, we go through all of this family history to say that this is very possibly Erica Kirk's ancestry. And if we consider just how terrible these people are and the things they've been up to, including political manipulation, if Erica Kirk is related to them, that would be an insane link that would really throw a wrench in her story. And I think it would be enough for people to go, Hold on, wait a minute. And I suspect that's why we won't officially know unless someone out there, one of you guys can find that missing link for us, for which I'd be so grateful. But something else interesting is still worth noting. We might not know Erica's exact family lineage, but presuming that they are Rosteen's, it's rather strange then that Rosteen shares family ties to another family, another prominent Jewish family that has been the center of many, many theories for hundreds of years and has been involved in everything from currency manipulation to economic crashes and to assassinations and everything in between. And that family would be the Rothschilds. Indeed, I was rather surprised to see that the two families are related and pretty directly because all I had to do is scroll over to the side and boom, there it was. The Rothsteins and the Rothschilds, two infamous crime families connected or right next to one another. Who knows? Maybe this is all just one giant coincidence wrapped in a coincidence taped in a rigmarole, but I really don't believe in those, and I'm not comfortable just saying things are just a coincidence. I think that's a lazy excuse when too many facts start presenting themselves. And so I will leave it on this note. I firmly believe that what looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck is probably a duck.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨EXPOSED: The Many Lies of Erika Kirk Pt.1 - Family & Child Trafficking From: @ScooperofCoop FOLLOW Him! https://youtu.be/5_fx4LIGf1M?si=w2lZe6jqnes7Hmo4

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - January 2, 2026 at 3:11 AM

Saved - January 2, 2026 at 12:42 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I’m highlighting alibi irregularities around Cabot Phillips: a CitiBank receipt shows “Dispute Charge” vs. “Dispute charge,” a small but telling capitalization mismatch. Coupled with out-of-date Publix magazine displays and a Time Special Edition timing that doesn’t fit Sept. 8, 2025, this raises questions about authenticity. An ELA analysis flags possible edits in a Nashville photo timestamp. I’m not accusing anyone, but these signs warrant deeper scrutiny. I welcome input from supporters of the open-source probe.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨BREAKING: Alibi Anomalies in the Charlie Kirk Investigation? This CitiBank Receipt Raises SERIOUS Red Flags! 🔍🤯 Folks, let's talk facts: In a standard CitiBank mobile app or online receipt, the button for disputing a charge is ALWAYS "Dispute Charge" – both words capitalized. But in the screenshot provided as part of Cabot Phillips' alibi? It's "Dispute charge" with a lowercase 'c'. This is NOT standard. Multiple verified screenshots and app guides confirm the consistent capitalization. This irregularity could indicate an abnormality, such as a potential digital alteration or Photoshop edit – or perhaps an outdated app version/glitch. Either way, it's highly unusual and not what we'd expect from an authentic, current Citi receipt. Why does this matter? It ties directly into the timeline around Charlie Kirk's tragic death. Witness Mitch Snow's testimony places key figures – including Erika Kirk and Brian Harpool – at Fort Huachuca on Sept. 8, 2025, specifically at the Candlewood Suites hotel, followed by a suspicious high-level meeting on the morning of Sept. 9 where the witness places Cabot Philips in attendance. Cabot Phillips (Erika's ex) shared this receipt and a Publix photo as an alibi to show he was in Nashville buying balloons on Sept. 8, far from Arizona. If the alibi holds, great – but these inconsistencies cast doubt. And it's not just the receipt. The Publix photo has its own red flags: The magazine rack behind him shows out-of-date issues that don't align with a Sept. 8 snapshot. People Magazine: The visible issue is the Sept. 1, 2025, edition featuring Helen Mirren. But grocery stores like Publix update racks weekly – religiously, often stocking the next issue in advance. By Sept. 8, the Sept. 8 (or later) issue should have been out, meaning this older Sept. 1 copy is unusually outdated for that date. Time Magazine's Special Edition 50th Anniversary Jaws: This collector's issue was released on July 11, 2025 (tied to the documentary premiere), but investigations revealed it wasn't widely available in stores until after Aug. 29 (theater re-release date). Yet it's prominently displayed – another timing mismatch that suggests the photo might not be from Sept. 8 as claimed. Adding to the questions: Another photo shared by Cabot Phillips – a family snapshot with a balloon, purportedly taken in Nashville on Sept. 8 at 6:57 PM – shows signs of digital manipulation based on Error Level Analysis (ELA) from tools like FotoForensics. According to analysis by @SCfactsonly, the ELA output reveals heavy pixelation, noise, and compression artifacts, especially in the semi-transparent date/location overlay ("Nashville September 8 6:57 PM"). This overlay stands out dramatically in ELA because text layers added digitally compress differently from the original photo content, making it a classic red flag for editing. The rest of the image shows more uniform compression, but varying noise patches suggest possible other adjustments. While there could be benign reasons (like app filters), this anomaly indicates the photo may have been altered – particularly the timestamp and location stamp – which could undermine its reliability as evidence of being in Nashville on that date. I'm not accusing anyone of faking anything – there could be innocent explanations, like a store with delayed stock, app variations, or photo editing for non-nefarious reasons. But based on the totality of circumstances – the non-standard capitalization on the receipt, the magazine date discrepancies, and now this ELA-detected irregularity in the family photo – these are irregular, highly unusual abnormalities that simply don't add up without more context. This warrants further investigation to get to the truth. Charlie's legacy deserves nothing less. If you're following the open-source probe, share this and demand answers. What do YOU think? 👇 Shoutout to @DiligentDenizen, @SCfactsonly and @Ex_Nihilo_x who has been steadfast in pointing out these inconsistencies and continuing the investigation on this matter. I would suggest everyone FOLLOW these guys. RT, Tag @RealCandaceO abd let me know your thoughts below.

Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker explains how to dispute a charge on a Citibank credit card. Steps: log in to your Citibank credit card account, click on view transactions, scroll to the transaction you want to dispute and click on it, click on dispute charge, fill out the dispute form, submit it, and you are done. Remember to click on the submit dispute form.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: How to dispute a charge on your Citibank credit card. Log in to Citibank credit card account. Click on view transactions. Scroll to transaction that you want to dispute and click on it. Click on dispute charge. Fill up the dispute form, submit it and you are done. Remember to click on the submit dispute form.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 27, 2025 at 10:44 PM

Saved - December 29, 2025 at 5:37 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

Two sides clash over Mitch, Candace Owens, and alleged collusion. Proponents verify Mitch’s base location, a high‑level meeting, detention, and a Captain Neff link to Blake Neff; only misidentiﬁcation remains disputed. No solid alibis for Sept. 8–9. Candace’s consistency is highlighted. The counter side argues real evidence of Egyptian‑Israeli links, a coordinated smear, and broader collusion, urging accountability and warning Alex Jones.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 ALEX JONES, BRO – JUST STOP. YOU'RE LOOKING LIKE A TOTAL CLOWN RIGHT NOW 🚨 The desperation is off the charts with these weak attempts to smear @RealCandaceO. Valhalla and Gary Melton's "big exposé" on Mitch? Completely fizzled. The women accusing him all have long patterns of similar claims against other men – by your own logic, Alex, they're just as "credible" as Mitch... or just as questionable. Even if Mitch had baggage (which is irrelevant anyway), it has zero to do with Fort Huachuca. Here's what we can independently verify – and have: ✅Mitch was on base exactly when/where he said. ✅There was a high-level meeting. ✅He was detained. ✅The Captain Neff at that meeting? That's Adam Neff – Blake Neff's (TPUSA) cousin. Verified. Everything in Mitch's story checks out except the exact identities of who he saw. That's literally the only thing still open for debate – and Candace has been crystal clear about that from day one. She never changed her story. Never claimed 100% on the IDs. Always said misidentification is possible. Yet not one implicated person has dropped a real, provable alibi for Sept 8 evening (Erika sighting at Candlewood Suites) or the Sept 9 morning meeting. Brian Harpole's ticket? Doesn't prove he was on that flight – plenty of time to arrive another way. So put up a legitimate alibi... or shut up. Twisting Candace's words isn't working anymore, Alex. Everyone sees right through the spin. Hope you and @LauraLoomer enjoy the honeymoon phase. Just warning you – she's intense. Sleep with one eye open, brother. The truth doesn't need coordinated hit pieces. Candace is winning because she's telling it. We’re wide awake now. 🔥

@RealAlexJones - Alex Jones

SEE THE ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT CANDACE OWENS IS KNOWINGLY LYING TO YOU: This is A New Transparent Attempt To Cover Up Her Past Lies That TPUSA Held A Secret Charlie Kirk ASSASSINATION SUMMIT At Fort Huachuca on September 9th Owens Is Now Claiming That TPUSA Producing An Alibi For Erika Kirk Is Proof That She Is GUILTY It Gets Even Worse: Now She Tells Us That We Should All Look At What Happened On September 8th And Not The 9th! I No Longer Believe That Candace Owens Is Insane, But Is Instead A Megalomaniacal Sociopath.

Video Transcript AI Summary

The transcript centers on a critical clash over Candace Owens, TP USA, and allegations surrounding Charlie Kirk’s murder investigation, focusing on Fort Huachuca, alleged alibis, and competing narratives presented by Candace Owens and her critics. - The speaker positions himself as having known and supported Candace Owens for ten years, but challenges her latest claims, calling them “ridiculous gaslighting” and “nonsense,” and promises to lay out the facts and where they land. - The ongoing dispute involves “Egyptian planes,” a “latest so-called witness and whistleblower,” Mitch Snow, and a broader question about possible foreign or domestic involvement in Charlie Kirk’s murder, which is tied to a Fort Huachuca narrative. - Mitch Snow is alleged to have claimed that he saw Brian Harpole leaving a meeting at Fort Huachuca on September 9, and also claimed that Erica Kirk was at Fort Huachuca the night before, at Candlewood Inn and Suites. Owens had hosted Snow’s claims as part of her investigation, and the speaker had previously advised Candace to check alibis. - Candace Owens’ supporters and surrogates allegedly attacked the speaker after he questioned the alibis; he persisted in investigating, noting that the Fort Huachuca storyline had “completely blown up” with those alibis. - The narrative shifts to Erica Kirk, with Owens stating she had claimed she did not say the military was involved and did not implicate TP USA, despite compilations of past statements suggesting otherwise. The speaker contends Owens moved the goalposts multiple times and used the Fort Huachuca angle as a distraction from a prior Egyptian plane storyline. - The speaker asserts exclusive access to HD screenshots from Andrew Colvin, the TP USA spokesperson, which purportedly show that Owens’ depiction of Andrew Colvin’s involvement in “secret damage control” is a fraud. He claims to reveal that Colvin was coordinating with Paramount Tactical, not Owens directly, and that Colvin reached out to Owens’ team with alibi requests regarding Erica Kirk. - A key incident involves a screenshot and a time-stamped image Erica Kirk allegedly sent to Colvin showing her with her kids at 08:33, purportedly from Phoenix, which Owens used as part of her alibi apparatus. The speaker presents this as evidence that Colvin’s communications were not a cover-up but a regular PR exercise, and that Owens used the image to claim a broader conspiracy. - The speaker narrates a back-and-forth where Colvin allegedly provided an alibi for Erica Kirk; he shows that Kirk sent photos from a park and home, and Colvin responded three hours later, asking not to display the photo publicly but to acknowledge the proof. Owens denies the alibi and reframes it as desperate behavior by TP USA. - The discussion expands to broader personnel and planes-related details: an undersecretary of the army allegedly went to Fort Huachuca on the eighth; a defense department border inspection visit is cited as context for why Fort Huachuca is significant. The speaker emphasizes that the focus should be on the ninth and the alleged base alibis, not the eighth. - The speaker accuses Owens of simulating a “gaslighting operation” and notes that she has discredited alibis by shifting attention to new claims; he maintains that the “ninth” is the core question, not the earlier Fort Huachuca references. - The narrative includes a conflict with commentators such as Alex Jones, Charlie Kirk, and The Daily Wire, and alleges that Owens’ circle has manipulated public perception to undermine TP USA and Charlie Kirk. - The speaker concludes with a denunciation of Owens’ tactics, insisting that the public should focus on the Charlie Kirk murder case and its true facts, while alleging Owens uses a pattern of deception, moving from one narrative to another to distract from the nine’s alleged details. He calls for prayer for Candace Owens and urges supporters to consider the broader battle against perceived globalist manipulation; he also frames this as a spiritual or existential conflict in which truth is being contested. Note: Promotional or advertising content included toward the end of the original transcript has been omitted.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Infowars, tomorrow's news today. Speaker 1: I just cannot see how this would lead to anything other than a full confession from the government about the military's involvement in his assassination, but I'm just going to deliver the facts and see where they land. Speaker 0: It's Saturday, 12/27/2025, and I'm giving you a major update on Candace Owens and her ongoing war against TP USA of the Trump Now before I get into the latest developments that are off the chart, ridiculous gaslighting every single bit of it, nonsense, totally disprovable, and a shell game, a distraction, a moving the goalpost. I'm gonna walk through it all here in a moment. I wanna be a 100% clear. I've known Candice Owens ten years. I've always liked her. I've been a supporter of hers. And when she started putting out all these incredible allegations about Egyptian planes and this, latest so called witness and whistleblower, Mitch Snow, I went and investigated because if it was true, this is incredible. And I've been investigating if there's some type of cover up going on with what happened with Charlie Kirk. And we have real intel and real information. We've already broken about that with Kash Patel that I covered and broke on September 16 in a White House meeting with the vice president and with others, Tulsi Gabbard, saying he didn't want to look at any foreign involvement. He didn't wanna look at domestically. And a month after I broke that, it came out and was confirmed. So I'm not saying don't investigate. I went and investigated this stuff. And the planes were discredited, but that could have been an honest mistake. This, though, is insane, Fort Huachuca. Speaker 1: This guy, Mitch, it was very compelling, said that he saw Brian Harpole leaving this meeting at Fort Huachuca on September 9. I wanted to give him the platform after I verified where he was to tell the story, but he also had to include the part where he claims that he saw Erica Kirk the night before, also on Fort Huachuca at Candlewood Inn and Suites. Okay? Speaker 0: So a week and a half ago, I go, Candace, I care about you. We've already looked at this. This guy's bad news. None of this adds up. Did you check for people's alibis? Please think about this. And she and her surrogates and minions came after me, and I said, okay. Well, I'll just continue to investigate. Speaker 1: Genuinely, I thought it was at, like, fifty fifty until until tonight where all of sudden, were all these attacks regarding Fort Huachuca. We didn't really know where they were coming from. You got people calling me insane. Alex Jones jumps into the foray. I'm like, what is happening right now? Why why does Fort Huachuca have so many people triggered? Speaker 0: Now even more has come out about Mitch Snow, and she did a video last night praising him, how accurate he is. But she also says, oh, but I never, you know, said the military was involved. I I never said TP USA was involved. Though we have all these compilations of her clearly saying that, and we're supposed to forget the past things she puts out, and then she moves on to the new stories that are even more insane. And that's what I'm gonna break down right now. The latest stuff she put out last night where she has moved the goalpost four or five times in insane directions and built this this straw man that TPUSA responding and putting out an alibi for Erica Kirk and and where she was on the ninth is is desperation by them. You're the one that met two weeks ago in Tennessee with her and said it looked like everything was okay. And then days later, you interview Mitch Snow and double down. He's saying Erica Kirk is at Fort Huachuca. And then they put out their alibi, and you don't even deny that it's an alibi. You say it's a sign of desperation. So about to lay it all out right now. These are the facts. So we're about to get into her latest distraction, and I've exclusively gotten the HD screenshots from Andrew Colvin, the spokesperson, the PR person for TP USA. I talked to him at length this morning, and you're gonna clearly see that the story she puts out that he's supposedly involved in secret damage control is an absolute fraud in the line. Because remember, she has these screenshots as well, but she's totally misrepresenting to her viewers and listeners what is actually in them. But first, I wanna recap how this whole Fort Huachuca story has completely blown up in her face and all the major players, her minion, her her her operative, her source claims were there have clear alibis. So this Mitch Snow character under another name weeks ago sends her an email, and she says God just had her open it up first, and she just knew it was real. And if she denies it, we'll play clips of that. And he says he's on Fort Huachuca, and he gets directed over to this skiff. He gets in the secure skiff. And there is the head of TPUSA security, and there is congressman Ahmedide. And and and then later, he remembers that Erica Kirk was on the base later, but but but that was a week and a half later when she he actually went on her show. And so since then, it's been confirmed that he was in congress by 11AM eastern, which is 8AM in Arizona time at the time in September. So that's the exact same time. Clear alibi. And her minions spin and go, oh, here's a two forty five screenshot of him being there, and, you know, he didn't get roll called. That doesn't matter. He's on the video. He's there. So they've now moved away from that. Then you also have their head of security with the stubs that, you know, he's in the air in Dallas at 01:45 flying up to Salt Lake City. So they kinda move away from that and want you to forget all about that and just say they were just asking questions. But but they were saying this is definitive. She believes this has credibility. You know, everything now is this story Fort Huachuca because she moved on to that to help us forget about Egyptian plane situation that totally fell apart. And 66% of the time, they weren't even on this continent. 60% of the time, they weren't even in the same, you know, airspace. But it doesn't matter because, again, she always moves on to the next diversion, the next distraction, the the next projection in this gaslighting operation. So so just remember that she doesn't wanna talk about these individuals that all have alibis. Remember, she's like God. She's the inquisitor. She's almighty. When she accuses somebody or has a guest on that does it, just asking questions, they have to respond to her. They have to show themselves. They have to prove themselves to her. And even when they do it, it's not enough. But now that the proof is overwhelming, I'll move on from that. She says, no. No. No. The undersecretary of the of the of the of the army, he went to Fort Pechuca on the eighth, which was scheduled back since July. And so now it's about who was on that plane. So now we're back to planes again, not the skiff, not the meeting on the ninth and who was in that. But now let's go ahead and lay out the latest insane developments. Again, I wanna be clear. Basically, two weeks ago, I reached out to Candice Owens, put out a public video, and said you're going in the wrong direction. I don't think you're a bad person. I think you're being given bad information about this snow character. Please look at my findings that have now all been vetted, all confirmed, in fact, worse than I said. And instead, I'm the bad guy. Well, then yesterday afternoon, she goes public and says, oh my god. Look what we have here. This is so crazy. We'll show you clips. They've been caught. They are totally, desperate. Andrew Colvin, the spokesperson that knows her well from TP USA, friends with Charlie Kirk, he is out directing from some war room. Hell, not even Fort Huachuca or who knows? NORAD maybe. And that he is in this damage control mode and doesn't want people to know he's in damage control mode, and he's reaching out to journalists and talk show host and groups and trying to get them to basically put out a cover story for Erica Kirk, and this is all being done at the direction of Erica Kirk. So I got on the phone, had a lengthy conversation with him right before we're shooting this report right now, and he said, look at what she says. And you can walk through the text. He gets contacted by Paramount Tactical that's been basically debunking all this, and they say, hey. We'd like an alibi on September 9 from you. You know, if you can get that proving that Erica Kirk was somewhere else other than Fort Huachuca. And so he reaches out to Erica. What mother isn't taking pictures of her kids, you know, playing at the park and backyard and stuff. She sends it with time stamps from 08:33. So there she is, you know, the same hour of the secret meeting supposedly going on at Fort Huachuca in Phoenix at her home and at the park. And and and, you know, she sends him this photo, and then he reaches out three hours later. He goes, oh, sorry. Yeah. I'm just now seeing this. You know, this is all crazy, whatever, but sure. Here it is. And he didn't say don't talk about this. He just said, please don't show the screenshot, you know, the photo because it's her kids. And he just pulls this up live on air because Andrew responded three hours, you know, late and goes, oh, gosh. And then Candice spins it like, oh, we just caught you in this massive cover up. Speaker 1: She sends it to Andrew Colvet to send to these obscure YouTubers who are live, and it didn't click with them that Andrew Colvet did not want them to say that he was their source. So this guy just starts live reading the messages that are coming in from Andrew Colvet where he proceeds to give an alibi that no one asked for. Speaker 0: So she doesn't deny that it's her in Phoenix. Screenshot, you can go to the metadata, which they have, that she's in Phoenix. None of that matters. And then she says, well, she was thinking, you know, maybe mister Snow's information was wrong, but not now because why would they be defending themselves if they were innocent? And she says, I didn't want alibis from you. What are you talking about? And she already went money before last all the way to Nashville, Tennessee where Candice lives to meet for four and a half hours and already show her a bunch of this stuff. And then Candice comes out and says, oh, looks like everything's might be okay. And then days later, has Snow on to double down and say, oh, no. No. No. Erica was there too on the base. So this is just absolutely crazy. And and when you watch her was it Instagram last night? Where I'm banned, of course, and YouTube where I'm banned, but, you know, she's anti establishment, and and and I'm the establishment. She sits there and basically says, oh, look. They're scared. They're desperate. They're they got a PR disaster because Andrew Colvin is sneaking around behind the scenes contacting influencers who do this. No. It's right there. She already has these screenshots. She has the screenshots from the livestream. They're not HD. I have the HD ones we're putting on screen right now, and he's reached out to him. He talks to him. They talk about AmFest last weekend, he says, oh, yeah. This is all just crazy. And then it turns into he reached out, Andrew Colvin, to Paramount Tactical as damage control for Erica Kirk when it's Paramount Tactical reaching out. I should have done this myself and ask for screenshots and stuff from her. And because they would get them too bad. I just learned. But I already knew it was all preposterous anyways. So so, again, let this sink in for yourself for a second. Here's Candace Owens saying he's in his war room, basically, scheming and in damage control and reaching out to people when it's clear the screenshot she has that she fights up for just a second, hopes you don't read it, hopes you're stupid. And he's reached out to, gets back three hours later, says, yeah. Here it is. Says, but just don't show the, you know, the the the photo. Not don't talk about it, but, you know, you can say you've seen the proof. And if Candace has a problem with that, Candace, you called up Andrew Colvin, and you called the rest of his crew, and I've confirmed this with him. Reverend Charlie was killed, and you said, I wanna see the HD camera from behind him to see if the bullet indeed doesn't come out the back. And that's all true, they said. And you saw the footage. They showed it to you that the bullet didn't come out the back, and it was agreed. This is gory. We shouldn't put this out. So it's the same thing here. Don't show the kids, but here's the time stamp. Here's the information. But the key here is Paramount Tactical contacted him. So the idea that he's running around in damage control, well, he's their PR person. Maybe he should because I've told him he should go on the air for weeks. I've told him he should counter this because they got receipts. They got what Charlie really said. They've got all the stuff, okay, that Charlie hated you for at least two years, but they have not been trying to get in a fight with you. It was on their website that you weren't affiliated with them for two years. Charlie was a gentleman and would push you off to Andrew Colvin because he didn't wanna escalate things with you. And that's the bottom line because you've been a troublemaker everywhere you go and everything you do. That's the bottom line. And you work for the Massad operation on record that is the daily wire. I've never worked for a Mossad operation. So you guys just keep spewing your Israel stuff like your stream last night. Oh, Netanyahu. He's mad. He won't be able to control this. Screw Netanyahu. Everybody knows that I don't work for those people, but that's all you guys do is imply that because you need to distract away from the fact that all these people you said were at this meeting through your minion were not there. So now you change to some, you know, high level, person from the Pentagon flying down to inspect the border operation. They announced in July that we're gonna have this border inspection, and, of course, Fort Huachuca is a major border base. Oh my god. Look. There was somebody from the defense department there. That proves it. Now it's about a plane on the eighth. Talk about misdirection like a magician does. Talk about gaslighting. Talk about shell games. Talk about moving the goalpost. I mean, this is insane. Absolutely insane. And here's the total proof. When you watch her, she says Andrew Kovich's running around trying to get people to do this and do it secretly. No. He's contacted. He said, sure. Here's proof. You can talk about it, but don't put up the picture. And she knows this. She has this information. But here we have it in HD for you, not just off some livestream. So let's go to the HD document. Andrew, this is from, Gary at Paramount Tactical. Hope you had a great time at AmFest. I'm doing an expose of Mitchell Snow tonight at 6PM ET. So is Nate over at the VFT and Jesse on fire who are both no friends of TBUSA, that's two Green Berets, and is still wholly aligned with Candice at 8PM. Can you provide anything proving Erica's whereabouts on the night? I know I've heard she was with her mother, even giving me a statement to confirm this will be helpful. Hard evidence is obviously better. So he gives him hard evidence three hours later. Okay? But but but let's just stop. Notice in the video that Candice put out last night on Instagram, she says, what are you doing distracting to the ninth? It's all about the plane and the Pentagon official coming on the eighth. She just started talking about this a couple days ago as her new diversion from the previous lies. Speaker 1: Okay. The guy said he saw her on the eighth. It's kind of like the Brian Harpole where they're just, like, giving us alibis for times that we're not talking about. Again, I wasn't even necessarily pressuring them for an alibi. Speaker 0: So they don't want alibis for the ninth. Now she's like, I don't want alibis. No. This is a distraction from the eighth, and that's why we're all so scared. Or she is the biggest sociopath I've ever seen. She's either gone nuts, is some type of paranoid schizophrenic, or and I I don't I don't think I think this is think she's called blooded evil, folks. So you just saw him reach out three hours later. Hey, man. Sorry. Just seeing this. Pin off my phone. But it's worth saying, laugh out loud, Erica wasn't in some fort in Tucson. The Internet has gone insane. She woke up next to Charlie, went to the office with Charlie all day, woke him up from a nap before Fox hit, went to dinner with Charlie. Literally, people are lunatics. And then he sends a screenshot from 08:33 Pacific time, and it's Erica covering up the faces of her kids. And it's got the time stamp and all the rest of it. And Candice doesn't even deny this is real. She just goes, look. It's Erica. She's involved. She's running it. Yeah. She flew to Tennessee to try to get you to stop accusing her of all this and implying she was involved in the murder, which you then denied. We have all the compilations of. I mean, this is sick. You accuse people. You do all this. You have a lunatic known con man on, serial wife and child abuser, and and and you raise him hundreds of thousands of dollars, and then people obliquely defend themselves and you spin up this giant story and sic your mob of lunatics on them? Wow. Proof she was with her kids at 08:33AM Pacific time. Don't share taking them for a walk before going to the office. And that turns into he's covertly putting out an alibi, but don't share because they don't want people to know he's involved as their PR spokesperson. Spokesperson. No. Erica didn't want the picture of her kids shared. I mean, this is so sick, people. And, again, her saying, I never implied anybody TP USA or anybody killed Charlie. And we have all these compilations of her basically saying it. Speaker 1: Just forty eight hours later, conveniently catch a bullet to the throat before our on stage reunion could happen. It's a yes or a no. Yeah. I'm putting the fire here right at the feet of Turning Point because I am disgusted. When we go back and we look at the calendar and we see that that request went out in mid July, it drives me insane. It just screams at me that this was an inside job. Okay? Speaker 0: And then she's also like, oh, snow. He rightfully said the units that are at Fort Huachuca, only an insider would know that. It says at the entrance of the base, what group is at Fort Huachuca? So in her video last night and and and this post she put out, she's like, woah. Mitch Snow knew what units were based there. I mean, that is incredible. It's only on the front entrance, these places. It's like, man, they pulled into McDonald's, and they knew it was McDonald's. Or they Mitch said they pulled into a Walmart, and it was Walmart. I mean, holy mackerel. This is next level horseshit. And and you watch it, and it's like your soul is being drained away by this gossip demon, this this spirit of deception. Great talk shows, dark waters. And you get back on, really broke it down. Let me say this before I get to some other final points here. I I don't follow gossip shows, And Candice has basically gotten politically where she doesn't really cover conservative topics. She used to tax conservatives and populist Trump, and it's based on what the Democrats love her. It's why YouTube boost her. But I remember when Kennedy was being confirmed or right when the confirmation began, it was pushed viral on the Internet, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, X, everywhere. And I was meeting two people to hike on the Green Belt at, like, 7AM on Saturday morning. And I'm listening, because it was pushed on me, to Candice talking about RFK junior might get under the control of an Israeli spy sex operative because it was pushed. I wasn't even looking for it. It was pushed everywhere. And I get out of the car, and the Navy SEAL guy I work out with, he's has it on too. And the other person that met us there, all we all get out. We're all listening to it. And so we hike and listen to, like, an hour and a half of this, and we all go, man, it's weird. It none of it made sense. There was no proof. But she goes, I just feel this woman who has a car that we think Kennedy paid for is a massage agent, and that's and it connects to Epstein, and that that's how Kennedy, you know, is being controlled, and that it's gonna be Kennedy on the Epstein list. I'm just like, what the hell? And I'm like, guys, you noticed this is right when the confirmations are starting next week. I mean, Bill Gates is spending hundreds of millions trying to take him down. And I was like, man, I got a bad feeling she's working for the bad guys. They're like, no. You she's good. You know, come on. I'm like, alright. Now those folks have both come around. They're like, yeah. This is bad. Because now when you go back and look at what she does right at key points, right at key confirmations, she attacks. And so I don't think she's mentally ill. I don't I don't think she has psychosis or postpartum. I mean, I think she's cold blooded, man. And you watch her on that Instagram last night, she's smiling. It's funny. And she just she just came out and just, you know, Erica Kirk and the congressman and the head of the US security are at this meeting to kill Charlie. Oh, I didn't say that. Yeah. You and your people did. And, oh, it's overwhelming, you know, the military because it just looks like they did it. It's just insane. But that's the only way the Democrats can take down MAGA. Trump's not perfect. We hold his feet to the fire. But who can say it'd be better to have Kamala Harris? The carbon tax is getting killed. Kennedy taking the dyes out and the and the mercury out of the shots and banning the mRNA shots, and it just goes on and on. Now democrat judges today are trying to block it all. And then Trump trying to stop all these wars and and doing all these great moves for the economy and no tax on tips and banning transgenders in sports. And, I mean, it just goes on and on and on. And I and I'll take all the great appointments. I'll take all the great things that are happening. But there's this move that you're not pure. You're not good unless you reject Trump. And then and then and then and then this whole squad of people that were always attacking Charlie Kirk in the last few years, they suddenly love him. They have taken over Charlie's identity. They and they know who they are. They have have have have him and undermined TP USA. And as soon as he's dead, no. No. No. No. Now you're his guardian. You you you you own who he is. Same people said, oh, he didn't keep the Sabbath, which is Christian and Jewish. It's on different days. He didn't write that book. And then I went and looked. There's all these speeches he gave since last summer when he was writing the book and says every he says everything on the stage that's in the book. And they go, they've stolen his identity. He didn't say all this. And a lot of these people said when he got killed, they said, look. He was for inclusivity. You know, he he wasn't just a white nationalist. But now that he's dead, we're gonna take control of his identity and say say he works for us. And then that wasn't Candace and them, but it was others. I've also seen Candace's minions, and I played clips of this yesterday when they denied it, saying we don't care if what she's saying true or not. We're bringing down the system. The system, we're trying to take back the republic. The globalists want a great reset, a collapse. They want a communist revolution. We're trying to stop that and avert the crash of the economy and the crash of the world economy that the globalists are trying to orchestrate. So I see through all of this. She's trying to change the subject out of the eighth. No. It was all about the ninth. So they bring receipts for the ninth, and they bring their alibis, and that's damage control. When you accuse people of stuff they defend themselves, that's damage control. You spin every aspect of it, and now it's about the eighth and some military plane that that flew in. When you read the stuff she put out on X yesterday, I mean, let me read you this. And does and does this sound like the ramblings of lunatic? But but it's not. This stuff is written. Just like the huge stuff was written by deep state intelligence to be nebulous, to have some facts in it. And so people check those facts and go, oh, yeah. That's true. The person who'd come there, well, that's proof it happened. You see, just like Mitch Snow was at Fort Huachuca that day, he claims. You know, this letter looks like a five year old wrote it. Who knows that's even real with a different name than Mitch Snow. He's used, like, four other names, but none of that's a red flag. So it's like, no. No. He was there, so it's all true. Then the people you accuse of being there part of the plot show they weren't there, and that's proof of the guilt. So it's this inquisitor. You've gotta answer to her. And when you do answer, you're desperate. You're you're you're you you got a PR disaster, and she smiles. I mean, that skin crawls. So listen to her. R c h seven zero two has been identified. Done. Done. Done. We're back to planes. I didn't know what she go what she go was about a plane. No. No. No. Forget the night. Forget the secret meeting. No. No. Now it's the age. You didn't know that? Nice try, folks. On July 11, the very day that Charlie told Tucker Carlson to go max in a speech against Israel, which launched the war against Charlie's top donors. There was a shakeup in DC. Dustin Gard Weiss was enrolled as the new executive director of the CIA replacing John Ratcliffe. Okay. Wow. Okay. Okay. So so the day Charlie talks to Tucker, there's a shakeup at the CIA. Okay. Alright. Okay. Previously, Weiss was the undersecretary of defense for intelligence and second security. He was replaced in that position by Bradley Hansel, who the senate voted to confirm July 22. Woah. Eric Kirk's in, and she's all going, woo. You're in trouble. Woo. It's like, oh, look. Look. I got an orange pen. That's woo. Look at that. I mean, you're, like, reading this, like, what the fuck is this? It was Bradley Hansel's office who booked the trip from Fort Andrews to Colorado Springs. You mean, the Pentagon's flying to main command bases? This woah. I mean, that's like a bear shit in the woods. I mean, my it's gonna be like Trump was in the White House. Woah. What the hell? A rattlesnake was in a hole in the ground, know, a bird flew in the sky. It was Bradley Hansell's office who booked the trip from Fort Andrews to Colorado Springs to Tucson before the call sign turned Sam as it entered into Fort Huachuca on the eighth. And it was an announced trip months before to inspect border security. That's a border security base. Oh my god. We have some brass that went to the base on the eighth. We're finding out who was on the plane. They're trying to divert you folks from the eighth. We never said the ninth. It was never about a meeting in a skiff. It was never about congressman Amadai. It was never about the head of the No. That is a lie. We never said that. We were working to confirm who else was aboard the plane and why discussing the flight seems to have caused such a deep state panic. You mean people are sick of you lying about people planning murders on the ninth? We start discrediting it? So you just magically bring up this flight and say, we're all upset about you because of a flight the day before on the eighth? You're no. Please find out who's on board. I'm sure you'll accuse them and suddenly, Mitch Snow will claim he was in a secret meeting with them and they all talk about murdering Charlie. I mean, what the hell? How dumb do you think we are? You just started talking about this two days ago. We're not been talking about that. Now you want us to go debate you about this plane. No. You just put your evidence out about it. We'll we'll listen to you, the great inquisitor, the god up on the mountain that gives us the stone tablets, burning bush. But since you're the burning bush, gotta back it up. We wanna know about the ninth, sweetie. The ninth. The ninth. Mister Snow. Oh, yeah. I mean, this is just totally insane. And it goes on from there. I mean, this this this is this is painful. And it it it is so incredibly sad that this is going on. And I don't know what to say. I just these are outrageous claims. I thought, my god. Are these Egyptian planes thing? Oh my god. Is this really this meeting at Fort Huachuca? Better look into it. And I said, have you checked alibis? Have you checked the and it all falls apart. And then she goes, it's not about the ninth. It's not about the skiff meeting, you dummies. It's about the eighth, and this trip announced in July where this undersecretary is visiting the bases and and and doing inspections. I mean, that is woah. A border inspection tour goes to one of the main border bases. I mean, you can't cover this up. This is smoking gun. Obviously, this guy did it. Obviously, everyone on the plane did it. And, obviously, Mitch Snow would say if there was a new meeting he saw. Because Candice even says she thought maybe it's this Daily Wire guy was there. So she sends him a picture of the Daily Wire guy, and Mitch Snow goes, damn it, he was there too. So this is incredible. I mean, I'm I'm sure if she sent Mitch Snow a picture of me, I'm sure I'd have been there. It doesn't matter if I was on air that day or, you know, hearing it. It doesn't matter. That's all fake. That's all AI, folks. Alex Jones got replaced with clones years ago. We all know that. So I know this is a long breakdown. It makes me physically ill to be dealing with all this, and I I I just don't know what to say. But to watch Candace Owens destroy herself and and whatever she's up to because remember all these other stories. Oh, RFT junior and the agent and the he's in the Epstein. Where'd all that go? Where'd all the other hundreds of pieces of crap go? Nope. It just went into a memory hole, a bye bye hole, and she just hopes you don't talk about it. And then I just, you know, love how her and her surrogates are all saying, oh, yeah. Alex has shown who he works for, who I work for. I'm not allowed on Instagram and Facebook and YouTube and boosted like you. I'm banned everywhere. I'm sued by the global sweepstakes. You finally have got one of those from the Macrons, and I was supporting you in that. So I morally can't sign on to horseshit of this level. Okay? I can't do it. And I said a week ago, said, I bet she'd create some new story to divert from the night, and she has. And then when Eric or Kurt gets a call from their spokesperson says, hey. Can I have this to show somebody? Sure. Here it is. I should've done this earlier. I saw them weeks ago do this. Then she does it tonight. It's real. She says, oh, this shows the desperation. You can't accuse people of stuff, then say you didn't accuse them. Then when they show the evidence, spin it say it shows desperation and say that COVID is reaching out to people when in the text messages you have that you don't deny are real, he was reached out to by them. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Can you say anything that's true? Can you tell the truth about anything? And people buying this like it's a soap opera, like they're on your team and then there's the other team. No, folks. There's real stuff going on. There's real cover ups. There's real issues with Charlie's murder and what really happened. We need to focus on that. But to do that, I have to go out and debunk this stuff. And it's becoming a full time job because so much BS spews out of code out of a can of someone's mouth. Alright. That's it for this report. Give me your research, your findings, what you think below here on x. We're also posted on Rumble and infowars.com/show,band.video. And I'm not backed by the Qataris or the Israelis. I didn't have a daily wire job. I'm not married to a British billionaire lord. I'm completely maxed out. Our operation is barely hanging on. We're winning court battles. But I need your support at the alexshowstore.com. We have the very best bring it right here. Methylene blue. You know, Kennedy loves it. And we've got the very best Shilogy. We've got the very best Boban Colossum. We've got the very best products, the last selection paper barrel. You are what funds this operation, the alexjonesstore.com, and we need your support. We have a sale going until New Year's Eve. The biggest ever, 60% off. Buy any supplement. Any supplement. Any supplement. Maybe a $20 supplement and get one a $45 supplement free. That is unprecedented deal at the auctionstore.com, and it ends coming up in just a few days. So thank you for your support. I appreciate you all. To Candace Owens' ring rates and priesthood, they're like, you're gonna be unpopular. We're gonna we're gonna get you. You know, they're doxing a bunch of people and stuff like that. Folks, I've been taking on the globalist for thirty one years. I've been under massive attack for fifteen. Okay? I don't follow trends. I set them. I always do what's right. I don't care about your popularity contest, your little bubble, you know, on x or whatever. Okay? The majority of people already see through this. It'll be the vast majority in a week, almost everybody in a month because I know I'm right. Okay? And I'm on 400 plus radio stations. 95% of them understand this have already been a concern. We're already mad at me for not in speaking out against this crap because they've been following this, and they're seeing through it. So just remember later when all this comes out and and even more and people of their own doing are having meltdowns, just remember, if you had to point at one person that literally launched the modern era against the globalist, it's me. And the globalist recognize that and hate my guts. So I understand I'm the OG. I know it makes you all feel powerful to criticize somebody who's been in the war this long. This isn't me. God has had his hand on me. I'm very humble about that, and I pray that God lead, God, and direct me, and I ask God for victory for all of us against tyranny and lies. And I pray for those of you that literally have a demonic spirit of gossip and deception and pride and hate on you. And the host of Dark Waters, I'm I'm posting on Infowars really did a great breakdown of that. And I and I hope you'll watch that because I care about you all. And if you look at the eyes of the people that are ring wrench, they're crazed. They're hateful. They admit we don't care what the truth is. I mean, it it's it's demonic. And and Candice looks more and more demonic. She looks more and more evil as as as as as time goes on. And, you know, I saw a little of that when she was here ten years ago for a few days, went out to dinner. Very nice, very friendly, and she wasn't all polished like she is now, you know, with her clothes and her style and everything. But out at dinner a few times, she kinda got real, like, talking about people talking about stuff and got real kinda you know? And I was like, wow. That's an interesting lady. And I and I and I think she does have a dark side, a mean side. I think we all do. And I I I think Candace Owens has joined the dark side. Whatever that is, you just can't deny it. I mean, the facts are here. I mean, you know, absolute change in the subject, absolute saying she'd do the thing she'd said she did. I mean, this is crazy. So she thinks her followers are illogical, but we don't want illogical people. But this is a good separating the wheat from the chaff here, you know, the the the goats from the sheep. But I do think everybody should pray for Candice Owens and that the holy spirit touch her heart and that and that and that she can repent of this and come out of whatever she's in. And and also those that she's been ministering to with her demonic lies can can can come out of this. Because this is this is the globalist move against America, against Trump, and against against what we're trying to do here. This is all a major spiritual battle. So I pray in the name of Lord Jesus, our Lord and savior, that Candace Owens' eyes be opened and the Holy Spirit come to her and give her comfort and help her wrestle free of these demonic forces that have entangled her like a boa constrictor. And I just pray that everyone pray with me for Candace Owens right now, and then we and we just pray that she come back to light. Thank you so much, our heavenly father. Amen. Alright. That's it for this report. Thank you so much.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

One last thing, @RealAlexJones – and I mean this sincerely. If you'd actually investigated any of this yourself, you'd have uncovered the exact same facts we did: ✅The Egyptian planes with Israeli links are real. ✅The coordinated hit job on Candace is real. ✅The Fort Huachuca timeline, whistleblower sightings, and suspicious activity are real. You keep dismissing it as "absurd" and "fantasy land," acting like it's crazy to suggest TPUSA, elements in the White House, Israel, or foreign actors could be involved. But let's not forget: The exact same thing was said about you for years – that your bankruptcy, the Sandy Hook ordeal, and everything surrounding it was some wild, impossible conspiracy. Now we have undeniable proof of the collusion and coordination against you. Of all people, you should understand how these machine-like smears work. You lived it. You fought it. So for you – of all people – to turn around and do the same to Candace... dismissing her investigation, mocking her, and leading the pile-on? It's deeply disingenuous. You should be ashamed. We expected better from the man who taught us to question everything. Don't become what you once fought against. The truth doesn't care about loyalty tests. 🔥

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 29, 2025 at 2:55 AM

Saved - December 29, 2025 at 5:34 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

I expose a Mormon elite network tied to TPUSA, Arizona politics, shell companies, and the Charlie Kirk scene. Terrell Farnsworth allegedly removed SD cards after a hit and lied; his father Dwayne leads shady ventures. 1Ten LLC allegedly moved $4.7M from TPUSA via a mailbox. Bowyer and Hoffman linked; EMP/grid contracts drive a Doomsday agenda. I demand transparency and a proper audit.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨EXPOSED: The Farnsworth "MORMON MAFIA" – TPUSA Insiders, Crime Scene Cover-Ups, Kickbacks, and Doomsday GRIFTS 🧐 The Farnsworth clan is no ordinary Arizona family – they're a deeply connected Mormon power network with fingers in TPUSA, state politics, shell companies, and even the Charlie Kirk assassination scene. Let's lay out the web: The SD Card Cover-Up King Terrell Farnsworth: TPUSA AV guy caught pulling SD cards from cameras behind Charlie right after the hit – then lying about it. Filmed a bizarre selfie video at the scene while his "friend" lay dead. His father: Dwayne Farnsworth – bankruptcy attorney and key player in shady Arizona companies. The Kickback Pipeline Dwayne co-founded multiple ventures with Tyler Bowyer (TPUSA COO) and Jake Hoffman (AZ State Senator). Their old company (dissolved 2021) morphed into 1Ten LLC – a "marketing firm" with no office, just a UPS store mailbox... that somehow raked in $4.7 MILLION from TPUSA entities. Bowyer went from wage garnishment/debt hell (2017) to dropping $650K cash on a mansion months after 1Ten launched and the money started flowing. If insiders like Bowyer/Hoffman are partners in 1Ten? Every donor dollar routed through that mailbox could be illegal kickbacks. The Political & Doomsday Angle Senator David Farnsworth (Terrell's cousin-once-removed): Obsessed with EMP "Blackout Wars" – lobbied Arizona with Erika Kirk's mother Lori Frantzve for grid-defense contracts. Former Rep. Eddie Farnsworth (David's brother): Blocked child sex abuse bills, sold charter school empire for $56M while consulting on the side. This isn't coincidence – it's a tight-knit Mormon elite network protecting their own, grifting on "national security" fears, and allegedly siphoning millions from TPUSA donors. errell tampers with evidence. Dwayne ties to the shell-company kickback web. Family lobbying with Erika's mom. Why the total radio silence from TPUSA accounting? Why refuse Charlie's dying wish for a DOGE audit? They're terrified of where the money trail leads. We're asking the questions they can't answer. Demand transparency. Demand the audit. Charlie Kirk built TPUSA to fight the swamp – not become it. Massive credit to @Mia_Stretch and @Ex_Nihilo_x For their exhaustive investigating that uncovered this corrupt cabal. Please FOLLOW them both! RT and Tag @RealCandaceO. We are so close to the finish line... 🏁 The connections are too deep to ignore. Share if you want real accountability. 🔥 Also FOLLOW @FinanceWolves and make sure to check out his FULL BOMBSHELL report below exposing the massive ILLEGAL kickback scheme between Jake Hoffman, Tyler Bowyer, and the Farnsworth Clan. 👇

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨BOMBSHELL: TPUSA FINANCIAL SCANDAL EXPLODES –TPUSA Insiders Receiving Financial Kickbacks Through 1TEN LLC?! 😱 Wolves and Finance just exposed what looks like a straight-up kickback operation inside Turning Point USA – and the numbers are staggering. The smoking gun: 1Ten LLC (aka 110 LLC) – a "marketing company" with no office, no website that's searchable, no employees... just a UPS store mailbox in an Arizona strip mall. Yet TPUSA entities have sent $4.7 MILLION to this mailbox since 2021. Owned by Arizona State Senator Jake Hoffman – who lied claiming it's a "decade-old" company (formed 2021 in secretive Delaware). Hoffman advertises TPUSA as a sample client on his hidden site 110(dot)io – unchanged since 2021, unindexed by Google). But the real bombshell: TPUSA COO Tyler Bowyer (runs multiple TPUSA shells) has a long history of side ventures with Hoffman – including a dissolved Arizona company with the same players. Bowyer went from wage garnishment and debt lawsuits in 2017... to dropping $650K cash on a luxury mansion in 2021 – months after 1Ten LLC launched and started raking in millions from TPUSA-linked campaigns. Coincidence? If TPUSA insiders like Bowyer are partners or profit-sharers in 1Ten LLC... every dollar from donor-funded campaigns flowing through that mailbox could be kickbacks straight back to them. Election campaigns (Kari Lake's super PAC alone sent $2.3M from a mystery donor) → 1Ten LLC mailbox → potential cuts to insiders. This is how shell companies work for money laundering and self-enrichment. Charlie Kirk's final memo (8 days before his death): Demanded a DOGE-style audit and appointed a new COO – widely seen as moving against financial irregularities. Erika Kirk? Still refuses the audit Charlie wanted. No statements from CFO Justin Olsen (Arizona Rep) or accounting. Only marketing guys like Andrew Kolvet spinning. If everything's clean... why fight transparency? Donors deserve to know if their money built mansions instead of the movement. Demand the DOGE audit now. Watch The FULL Wolves and Finance breakdown below – watch it all. SUBSCRIBE to him on YT & FOLLOW him on X @FinanceWolves Tag @RealCandaceO and RT to your friends. The house of cards is shaking. 🔥 https://youtu.be/7XzKg99qn-4?si=ylqMnaLrQ0iazkSJ via @YouTube

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 26, 2025 at 4:47 PM

Saved - December 26, 2025 at 6:13 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I recount Lionel Nation's explosive takedown of the Right's "free speech" defenders who attack Candace Owens while decrying deplatforming. He says they’re not debating but silencing; there’s a figurative bounty on her head. He compares Owens to Elon in impact, notes gatekeeper jealousy. He warns the machine won’t spare allies and urges true free speech as allowance, not consensus. It’s a call to stand up for principle and oppose censorship.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 HYPOCRISY EXPOSED: Lionel Nation CALLS OUT the Right's Circular Firing Squad Aiming Straight at Candace Owens— Attacking Her Today Means THEY'RE Coming for YOU Tomorrow Lionel goes nuclear on the hypocrisy exploding across the RIGHT. "My friend, I cannot believe what I'm seeing unfold right now..." The same people who built their brands screaming about free speech, who wore deplatforming like a badge of honor, who begged us to defend their right to say wild sh*t... Are now lining up in a circular firing squad to silence, exile, and erase Candace Owens. Not the left. Not the usual enemies. The "free speech warriors" on our side. They're not debating her. They're not correcting her. They're demanding she shut up, disappear, or worse. Lionel: "You put people in danger when you come after them like that. There's a bounty on her head – figuratively, and in some cases explicitly." And for what? Because she crossed "the line"? Because she's too powerful? Too independent? Because she built a direct pipeline to millions without asking permission from the gatekeepers? "She's to digital media what Elon is to rocketry. She disrupted the entire model – and it's driving them nuts." These aren't critiques. These are character assassinations. Commercial jealousy dressed up as "moral concern." Cable news hates her because one Candace video outperforms their entire week. Legacy influencers hate her because she outpaces institutions built with billions. And the attackers? Many "once respected voices" now whispering (and screaming) for her deplatforming. Lionel warns: You're next. The machine they're feeding doesn't stop at Candace. It won't distinguish allies when you deviate even slightly from the "approved line." If you abandon free speech when it's inconvenient... don't cry when no one defends you later. This isn't about agreeing with Candace. It's about whether dissent is allowed when it's powerful. Lionel: "Free speech isn't about agreement. It's about allowance. It's about trusting truth emerges through conflict, not suppression." He's calling battle stations. Code Red. Watch this full rant – it's one of the most powerful defenses of principle you'll hear in 2025. Go to his YT and SUBSCRIBE please and give his video a like, i'll drop the link in the comments below. 👇 Real free speech absolutists: Stand up now. The masks are off. Choose your side wisely. 🔥

Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker vents about Candace Owens becoming the focal point of a fierce, circular attack from people who supposedly defend free speech. He describes the scene as a firing squad of individuals who built their public identities on defending speech, yet now rush to “push people out of the way,” attack Owens, and demand she be silenced or erased. He emphasizes the speed, ferocity, and hypocrisy of the reactions, noting that those who champion speech and dissent are now labeling Owens as crossing a line that must be punished. He stresses that there is a figurative (and sometimes explicit) bounty on Owens, warning that coming after her endangers people and signals a broader, dangerous trend. He points to Owens’s prominence as a disruptor who bypassed traditional gatekeepers—“what she represents” is independence and the end of permission-based relevance. Owens’s direct relationship with her audience, he argues, terrifies established institutions and gatekeepers who cannot throttle her platform. The speaker condemns the shift from defending free expression to calling for deplatforming when Owens surpasses rivals in reach, influence, and commercial impact. He accuses the critics of jealousy, commercial self-interest, and intimidation, rather than genuine concern for standards or safety. He asserts that the same people who once defended speech now call for suppression when it serves their own interests, and he suggests this is driven by power and censorship-loving impulses. He recalls his own stance on Owens’s controversial remarks about Brigitte Macron, acknowledging concern about defamation but insisting he never urged silencing her; he warned about legal risks but still defended her right to speak. He argues that the current backlash is not about disagreement but exclusion, labeling, and isolation—a strategy to turn Owens into a pariah. The speaker asserts that Owens’s influence demonstrates how a single, authentic voice can bypass institutions and speak directly to millions, provoking panic in those who built systems around control. He warns that this machinery does not distinguish between allies; once activated, it can target anyone who deviates from the “new approved line.” He accuses some critics of being paid to push deplatforming and of using the pretext of standards, safety, or responsibility to mask envy and loss of control. He frames the issue as existential: is opinion allowed to breathe in the digital public square, or will dissent be tolerated only when it is small? He argues that free speech is not about agreement but about allowance and expansion, trusting that truth will emerge through conflict. He urges consistency: defend the right to speak for all, even those you disagree with, and resist turning this into a partisan battle. The video closes with a rallying call: this is bigger than Candace Owens; it’s about whether we will stand by the principle of free expression. He thanks viewers and asks for engagement and dialogue, emphasizing that the moment is about defending speech itself, not winning a feud.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: My friend, I I cannot believe what I'm seeing unfold right now. I I I can't believe it. I swear to God. I never thought I'd be talking this much about Candace Owens, and I think to myself, okay. That's it. We're finally done with it. Let's move on. And then something else will happen. Somebody will rise up and denounce her, and I'm thinking, wait a minute. What are you doing? I mean, she is she is she is in the middle of this firing squad, a circular firing squad. In essence, the people who you think would understand free speech more than anyone. The people who have said some of the most stupid things ever that I've defended and others as well, not defend what they say but their ability to say it. They're coming out of the woodwork trying to push people out of the way. Let me attack her. Let me stone her. I I mean, I can't believe this. I cannot believe what I am watching unfold right now regarding her. I I I truly can't. I'm not just saying that. The speed and the ferocity and the hypocrisy of it all and them are staggering. People who built their entire public identity and their money around defending speech and dissent and heterodoxy and and and platform independence are now lining up to demand that Candace Owens shut up and be shut up and shut down and disappear or worse. And they're not subtle about it. Let me tell you something. You put people into danger when you start coming after them like that. There is a bounty on her head figuratively and in some cases explicitly. Let me say something about that quickly. Do not think I'm exaggerating. Do not think I'm exaggerating. Do not. This is a sick world. I tell people all the time, I don't know where you've been. But just like these idiots who put pictures of their kids on Facebook, these are people in Congress. People with bull's eyes on them. Here's my children. Here we are at home. This is where I live. What do so you've gotta be careful. So when you come after her all the time, what do you want? Especially when she brings up Charlie, the only person, the only one who gives a damn about Charlie Kirk up to and including his wife. And I'm gonna say it. What is the matter with these people? Do you not are you looking at a different Erica Kirk than I am? Am I missing something? Where have you been? My god. Don't you know how to read a witness? The tone against Candace is punitive, and the intent is exclusionary. The message is clear, my friend. She's crossed some line and now must be removed. Oh. From people who I if I didn't know better, I think you've you're a sellout. Who's paying you? Who's paying you to come out after her? Is that it? Is that how is that how it works? Whoever all of a sudden, people pop out of the door and say, what are you doing? Where are you? Oh, you're against her? Et tu, brute? And from whom is this coming? Not the usual suspect. No. No. No. Not the obvious ideological enemies, oh, no, no. This is this is something. This is something. You pay attention. This is coming from people who should know better. And maybe they're paid better. People who lectured the world about free expression, oh they were so loud and so vocal, oh they were so fantastic, so definitive in their protestations and detestation of the clamping down of freedom of speech. People who wore their de platforming scars like metal. People, many of us, defended and still do. Not because we agreed with everything they said. Let me be clear about this. To defend somebody's right, whether it's Fuentes or Milo or Megan or Bannon or whoever the hell it is, or or AOC or Jasmine Crockett. I don't want anybody shut down because they're wrong or stupid. Say what you want. Turn the goddamn channel if you don't like what they say. Hashtag so what? This is rudimentary. I can't believe I'm even saying this. We didn't I don't agree with these people, but I believe in their right to say it, especially after we just came out of COVID and deploy people are now coming back. It's like the the flowers are coming. It's spring again. Hey. Remember that guy? Hey. Come on. Welcome back. He's an idiot. But so what? Come on back. At least, you know, welcome. Talk. I'll disagree with you, but we need more people. Oh, no. Not with Candace. Oh, no. She's gone too far. People who insisted that they didn't need permission and who rightly celebrated that independence, they're now coming against her in droves en masse. And those people are now calling for Candace Owens to be sidelined and erased and neutralized. Why? Why? Why do you think? Come on. Use your head. Because she threatens them, everybody. This isn't about disagreement or about being wrong. Are you kidding? Or disinformation or misinformation or that information or whatever it is. Disagreement is healthy. Disagreement is necessary. Ask ask ask Einstein about about Newton. Ask about disagreement. Ask about how things change. The Beatles disagreed with Gershwin to an extent. That's how we got new music. I've disagreed with Candace Owens publicly, privately on several matters. So what? If you've got an no. Most notably, her allegations involving Brigitte Macron. I thought and still think she was entering very, very dangerous legal territory. And I said it out of concern, not because I wanna shut her up. I still think she has the right to say it, but be careful of the repercussions. And I told her. I said so. I I did tell her I've never spoken to her, I've said so. I warned the defamation law doesn't care about vibes or suspicions or Internet momentum. Doesn't care about that, especially in Delaware where this jury is gonna be impounded. I caution. I caution. She was exposing herself to serious risk, but at no point at no point did they ever suggest for a second that she'd be silenced. At no point, never did I even intimate, hint, or suggested that that she should be removed from the from the conversation. I I I mean, what they're hitting it with anti Semi, pro Arab, anti they're running out what races? You're try that one? They're running out of labels, and none of it's working because you're here, because you agree with me, because you're smart enough to realize, Jesus, do you see what's happening? That's the line we're talking about. That's always the line. Don't cross the line from disagreeing with her or despising her to shutting her down. What is happening now crosses that line because of jealousy, because she threatens people, because she's becoming too powerful. And these idiots don't understand that by virtue of the volume of their protestations, you're merely elevating her commercial worth. These aren't critiques. These are calls for her exile. These are not debates. These are character assassinations or worse. They are naming her. They are targeting her. They're isolating her, turning her into a pariah. And we're next, and you're next. This isn't principle. This is personal. This is jealousy, commercial jealousy masquerading as moral concerns. Cable news, hate her. She'll do in one video what CNN will do in a week. Think about that. Oh, you don't know how bad they are. You don't know. I mean, nobody's watching this. Cable? What's next? Shortwave? I've got an idea. How about little baby monitors? You know, nursery monitor where you CB radio? How about that frequency at the airport? You know, at 1,600, the red zone. Is she is destroying them. But I keep telling him, if you want her to go away, ignore her. Don't don't bring up your arch enemy's success. Candace Owens is blowing everything up, and they can't stand it. And me, I, I guess, I'm a schmuck. I'm thinking, hey. That's great for all of us. Right? Right? Right? Hello? Anybody here? Have you have you what? Is she saying? She is to opinion and digital media what Elon Musk is to modern rocketry or better yet model rocketry. She disrupted the entire model. She didn't ask permission. She didn't wait her turn. She didn't go through the approved hoops and the channels. Now make sure you do. Make sure you go incrementally to this. Make sure you check with this one. Go, he was here first. Oh, you know what? Why? She built a direct relationship with you, the audience, that no committee controls and no gatekeeper can throttle, and it's driving these people nuts. I mean, it's driving them nuts. She said something she said something about Egyptian pilots or something. Look. I I can't tell you I'm an expert, but let her say it. Tell her she's wrong. Disprove her. Maybe help her out. But oh, no. No. This threw the idol. You can't say that about Egyptian pilots. What about them? I don't know. But if that brings her down, fine. Oh, for the love of god. You sound like the anti COVID. You sound like the ivermectin crew. She outpaces institutions that spent decades and billions building relevance. And she does it with a phone, a camera, and conviction, and a relentless work ethic, and authenticity, and likability. And she's hit a nerve and they can't figure it out. That terrifies people. People who thought they owned the space. People who along the way realized that what brought them to the market look, whatever you wanna say, disagree with me. Go ahead. But I'm legit. I'm not I'm not just making this up. Okay? I'm not when I say something, believe it. That's all. That's all. Believe it. And let's be honest, speaking of believing it, many of these voices believed free speech was some kind of a shield for them, you know, Kevlar. Right? Well, apparently this is not a principle for everyone. See, they loved it when it protected their descent. Oh, they loved it. They celebrated it when it allowed them to challenge orthodoxy. But the moment, the moment that Candace Owens surpassed them in quantifiable commercial influence and reach and engagement and power and cultural relevance. Well then the rules changed. Suddenly speech needs boundaries. That's right, Boundaries. Suddenly platforms need responsibility. Suddenly her tone matters. Suddenly the same people the same people who screamed about censorship, who screamed about the inability to speak are now whispering and screaming about deplatforming her. And a lot of these people are being paid off and you know it's true And you know who I'm talking about. Okay? You know. You know how this thing goes. My friend, that is not growth. That's exposure that we're talking about. And I find it disgusting, reprehensible. I find it beyond the pale. Absolute I the the the this is this is this is existentially stupid. How's that for a it's it's it's just stupid. This is our business. What are you doing? And I find it deeply disappointing. I mean, profoundly disappointing because some of these people I once respected and they were once respected voices, people who were really in the hall of fame. They understood something essential that free speech is not about agreement. Free speech is about allowance. It's about expansion. It's about trusting that truth will emerge through conflict, not suppression. Let people speak, celebrate them, celebrate their words. And now they want her gone. Can you see it? And this is war. This is war. They want her gone. Not corrected, not challenged, but gone. And I'll let you fill in the blank. Well, what kind of gone? In this day and age, there's no telling. Do you know what that tells me? It tells me they are not confident in their own ideas. They're not secure in their relevance, their own relevance. They are not winning on merit. They're afraid. Oh, I've seen this a million times. For those of us in the biz, we've seen this. And here is the warning that they don't want to hear and they sure as hell don't want you to hear. Be careful. Be very, very careful because you're next. And I don't say that loosely. I don't say that I thought after COVID and what we went through, I thought for sure after Trump got in, I thought we would we would be so imbued in the celebration of free speech that we would never let this happen again. The precedent that they are setting, and I hope not you, but they are, will not stop or erase Candace Owens. No. The machinery that they're feeding does not distinguish between ideological allies once it is activated. The same crowd, the same crowd that cheers her removal, will eventually come for you when you deviate even slightly, even in a smidgen from the new approved line. And you know why also they do this? Because they love the power. Oh, they love censorship. Oh, they love it. Once they get away with it once, oh, they wanna do it again. That was fun. Whose scalp can we collect now? We used to say the left did it. Oh, no. Remember, everybody I'm talking about now. I'm talking about is the right. I'm not talking about the left. Oh, I understand this. And when that happens, friends, you are going to need people like me and others and Candace to stand by you to say that we do not agree with everything that you said but we defend your right to say it. Isn't that axiomatic? Isn't that what we Americans say? Isn't isn't isn't that part of our who's that? Nathan Hale or Patrick Henry? I get them confused. Do not burn that bridge, my friend. Do not. This moment is not about Candace Owens alone. I mean, she's she's the subject. She's the target, but it's not about her. It's about whether something even more far more fundamental. It's about whether opinion itself is allowed to breathe, to exist. Whether the digital public square remains open or or becomes managed, who knows? Whether influence is earned through persuasion or granted through some kind of approval, we'll see. Whether dissent is tolerated and to be tolerated only when it is small or allowed, even when it is powerful. This is what we're talking about. These are the issues. These are the issues. And like I said, every time I said, okay, we're done with this count, there's always a nope, something else. Candace Owens represents something that cannot be put back in the bottle, in the toothpaste tube. She represents independence. Remember that? What's it called? Yeah. The the independence. Right. We celebrate independence. Remember that? Remember that? We kinda like that word, but that's what we're talking about with her. She represents the end of permission based relevance. Please, sir. Can I can I say it please? Please, mister platform man. Let me talk. Please. No. Sorry. We don't do that. As we say this now, that dog don't hunt. Kansas Owens represents what happens when an individual voice bypasses institutions entirely and speaks directly to millions. That's what happens. And if you don't like what she says, go someplace else. That's what that channel thing on the off button is kind of a is like a channel changer. And see what I'm saying scares people. Oh, this scares people who build careers inside systems that no longer control the flow. Now let me tell you something. There's nothing worse than that version of the Japanese soldier who doesn't know the war is over. Instead of adapting, instead of competing, instead of of of improving, they're trying to eliminate. They're trying to say we have to do this. Not to mention, as I said, a lot of these people are being paid off directly. Just go after her. Remember I told you the story about Moby in what 2016 or something where he said that his social media accounts were either bought by or or given to, so to speak, leased to the CIA or intel organizations to take his group, his crowd, and then direct it in support of the the war or against the war or pro Russia gate or whatever it is. That's what they're doing right now. How many times you have to hear leaders tell you, oh, we wanna go after social media platforms. That's what we're doing. Well, this is a way to do it. Theoretically, if I could get to let's say, I don't like Joe Rogan. Okay. Which I do and I respected him, but let's say I I don't like Joe Rogan. So what I do is I say, hey, Candace, come here. Are you amenable to this here? Here you go. Turn all of your folks against him. You know what that does? First of all, I dilute his power by having people turn him and I use the very platform that supports him to bring him down. Sound familiar? You what? You think this is brand new? It's the oldest move in the book. It's the oldest move in the book. I do not recognize this behavior, again from people who once spoke so eloquently and so persuasively about liberty. I do not recognize, I do not countenance, I do not abide this cowardice from those who once mocked cancel culture. I do not recognize this sudden embrace of limitations of speech. I don't like it. I don't want it. I do not embrace suppression from those who once warned against it. Am I making this clear? I hope so. Because you cannot claim to defend speech only when it's convenient to you and you have to put jealousy and petty jealousies and commercial and competitive jealousies aside. You can't say you believe in open discourse, and then panic when someone else dominates it. Plus, you're feeding information to the enemy. You cannot pretend this is about standards, or safety, or responsibility or whatever you want to call it when the real issue, the real issue is envy and loss of control. I hope I'm getting through. I know you get it, but maybe I hope the right people hear this. Candace Owens, it's not about Candace Owens. She happens to be the target now, but Candace Owens does not need my agreement, she doesn't need my consent, she doesn't need my approval. She does however, she does however need my protection and yours. But she deserves the same defensive principle, the identical defensive principle that others received when they were under fire and we were there to support them. It is axiomatic, my friend. That is what I'm trying to say. That is what consistency looks like. That's it. Be not mistaken. This is bigger, and I know you know this, I'm I'm saying this, but this is bigger than personalities, bigger than feuds and squabbles and the like. This is bigger than factions and fractionalized contra told. This is about whether we actually mean what we say, whether we're legitimate, whether we're authentic, when we talk about free expression. It's really simple. It's existential and it's axiomatic. When those words were a belief or a brand, we all said it. Well, to me, it's more than a brand. It's more than just something that we say. It's real. If you abandon the principle now, this is the most important, if you abandon the principle that I'm talking about right now, do not be surprised when no one comes to your defense later. I've said this before and I have to repeat it because I don't think people really understand this. I don't think people get it. We have to make for the government and everybody the notion of the the the denial of free speech should be most unpopular because this movement was never supposed to be about who gets to speak. That's not it. It was supposed to be about making sure and ensuring and guaranteeing that everyone can. Remember, the left wants to stop you from speaking, but the right wants to stop you from thinking. You see what this is about? And the moment we forget, that is the moment we lose everything that we claimed to believe in that was axiomatic and existential. That's where we lose completely. And we are better than that. We are smarter than that. We're not gonna let that happen. So let me say again, this is not about Candace Owens per se. It is about her being the subject of attacks, not from the left, we understood that, but from the right, from the very people that I thought knew better. Thank you for watching. Thank you for watching. Thank you for letting me intrude upon your day. But this is critical. This is battle stations, my friend. This is Defcon whatever the hell the number is. This is Code Red, baby. Please do me a great favor. Please like this video. Subscribe to the channel. Hit that little bell so you're notified of live streams and new videos. I appreciate that immensely. Also, subscribe, subscribe, subscribe. And also I have some pictures here. Pictures? I'm missing pictures. I'm losing it. Some comments for you and questions that I would be most appreciative if you answer. By the way, want all questions come forward. Everybody's welcome. I wanna hear your speech. I may not agree with it. You might not agree with mine, but at least you respect my sincerity and at least you provide me with a form to speak as I will you. As you comment. As you see fit.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨SHOCKING: Coach Colin Just DROPPED The TRUTH Bomb On VALHALLA, ALEX JONES & GEORGE WEBB – And It's BRUTAL 🚨 If you claim to "love" Candace Owens, respect her, call her a friend... then why are you publicly torching her instead of reaching out privately? @iamcoachcolin nails it: @Valhallachannel, @RealGeorgeWebb1, and @RealAlexJones ALL have direct lines to Candace. Yet when they spot "holes" in the Mitch whistleblower story, what do they do? NOT: "Hey Candace, we found some issues – let's work this out behind the scenes to get to the truth." INSTEAD: Straight to public attacks, ultimatums, and "scorched earth" threats. 🟥Valhalla: "Story's over." Gives Candace a Friday deadline – shut down the GoFundMe or he drops everything on Mitch (and implies on her too). 🟥George Webb: Posts clips of Mitch's toxic past and declares "Told you so – your whistleblower saw nothing." Ignores direct questions connecting the dots. 🟥Alex Jones: Full flip – now calling it manipulation after his "private conversations." Colin calls the MOCKING BIRD PATTERN crystal clear: They say "We love Candace," "Wish she'd reach out to me," "We need to protect her"... then immediately go nuclear in public. If you actually respect someone – let alone call them a friend – you don't ambush them online. You pick up the phone. You collaborate. You seek truth together. This isn't about protecting Candace from a bad source. This is about controlled opposition rushing to "debunk" and smear the second she touches a sensitive story. Colin: "If I found holes, I'd message her privately: 'Hey, check this out – get back to me.' Not ultimatums and scorched earth." Exactly. Actions speak louder than "I'm a fan" lip service. The mask is slipping. These public "allies" are showing who'd rather burn the bridge than build the truth. Candace has been upfront from jump: She's verifying what she can, never claimed 100% on identities, and real investigation takes time. Yet the same crew that screams "trust the plan" can't extend basic trust or courtesy to her. Make note of who chooses smears over solutions. When Candace returns... it's going to be fireworks. 🎤💥 Who's really on Team Truth? Watch the clip – Coach Collin cooks with facts and logic. Be sure to FOLLOW @iamcoachcolin And go watch his full episode. I'll drop the link i the comments below. He's the real deal, who will always give it to ya straight.

Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker discusses reactions to Candace’s incident reports and what Candace allegedly said, including Fort Huachuca confirmation and that Mitch Snow, Michael, and Harry were there. They plan to show what Candace actually said, noting it seemed like a subliminal address while a larger group tries to debunk her. They also mention George Webb and that many have told them to check his work, though they’re unsure. They summarize Valhalla VFT’s position: if by Friday Mitch returns all the money to Candace and Candace donates it to Mitch’s victims, the situation could move forward positively; otherwise, they will go “scorched earth” on Friday and reveal everything about the man. The speaker expresses discomfort with a pattern they’ve observed: three people—Valhalla VFT, Balak’s Tones, and George Webb—initially express support for Candace and claim they want her to reach out, but then publicly attack or debunk her. They note that all three claimed to care about Candace, and then shifted to public attacks after alleged private communication. George Webb is described as briefly protective, then chastising Candace in posts; Balak’s Tones is said to have given Candace an ultimatum (twenty-four hours) to shut down the GoFundMe and redirect funds to “victims,” followed by a series of videos and attacks. Valhalla is described as shifting from supportive to attacking as well, creating an odd pattern. The speaker outlines personal experiences with these figures: George Webb did not answer a question about how a clip connecting to Fort Huachuca related to his claims, and has a tendency to block on social media; Valhalla is accused of reframing and proclaiming the story “done” while moving toward public attacks. Balak’s Tones is accused of issuing ultimatums and then attacking Candace if her response did not align with his demands. The speaker argues that if these individuals genuinely cared about Candace, they would press for the questions she must answer. They examined Valhalla’s claims about building numbers, foyer requests, and license plates: one building number checks out, the other’s existence is unclear; the foyer request answer is reportedly not verifiable by Candace’s team alone, though she has people who could obtain it; the California license plate claim “checks out.” The overall tension centers on the ultimatum to shut down the GoFundMe by Friday and the shifting portrayal of Candace’s story by these three figures. The speaker concludes by noting Valhalla’s deep emotional stance against toxic spousal situations may influence his views, suggesting his past conversations with witnesses and victims inform his strong stance, which, in the speaker’s view, colors his approach and may contribute to the public attacks. They acknowledge liking Valhalla and recognizing the no-tolerance stance, but feel it clouds judgment and pushes toward attacking Candace.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: So many people have messaged me about Valhalla VFT and what he had to say about Candace and her incident reports. I believe that's what it is. And her confirming Fort Huachuca and confirming that Mitch, Michael, Harry was actually there. So I'm gonna show you what Candice actually said because I don't know if you know, but Candice actually kind of addressed it. It was almost like a little subliminal. It was kinda addressing him, but then, you know, the the larger sphere of people trying to debunk her every step of the way. I will say right off the bat, I found this odd. There's there's there's parts of it I understand and then parts that I don't understand. And then also, I guess, we'll talk a little bit about George Webb. George Webb, very odd. You know? Let me just write that down. George Webb. Very a lot of people tell me to check out his work. I I don't know. Let's let's just jump in Valhalla first, and then and then I'll talk a little bit about what I'm thinking there. But let's hear what he has to say. Speaker 1: That's it. Story's over. Without without everything about Mitch now, there is no there is no more story. Regardless of how we feel about Candace, we're fans of Candace. If Candace knew this about this guy and decided to still platform him, I'm gonna be I'm gonna be horrified. I'm gonna be absolutely horrified. So, anyway, here's here's what I'm gonna say upfront. I think if by Friday, Mitch gives all that money back to Candace and Candace is willing to donate that money to the victims of Mitch Snow, then we could probably all move forward in a positive way. If not, we will go scorched earth Friday, and I will show you everything about this man. Speaker 0: Now this is where I find this weird because there has been a pattern of people claiming that they love Candace. And, again, Valhalla's great. Yeah. Great great information. Great guy. But there is this pattern from George Webb to Balak's tones to now Valhalla saying we're fans, lover, wish she reached out to me. Each one of these people have said this. Wish she reached out to me. And then they go on this public attack, this public smear. I find it so odd because all three of these people have this direct communication with her, and Vahala is kinda taking and George George has done this. Vahala's done this. Balak has done this. K? They're they're just kinda saying, story done. Story debunked. George, the other day, was just like, hey. I'm showing you this clip where this guy's talking about having a toxic interaction with his wife, now ex wife. And then George just says, told you. Your whistleblower didn't see anything. And I'm like I even said it to him. I'm like, can you tell me where the clip and him not being at Fort Huachuca, how that connects? And he doesn't answer me and then starts answering people who were commenting on it and just saying things like, Candace needs to be protected, like, repeatedly. It was very weird. And I was like, hey. Because I don't like when people ignore me. I go, hey. Just wondering. Can you enlighten me on how those two are connected? Doesn't answer me. People have said that he's a little bit sensitive at times, and he'll he'll just block you at a whim. Hasn't blocked me yet, but he definitely, is reframing from answering me. Now I noticed Vahal is doing the same thing. He's just like, this story's done. Now here's what I think that these three people would do if they really cared about Candace and what she was saying. You think they would be like, these are the things she has to answer. Everything Vahala just Vahala just said, if you look into it, it it seems pretty true. I looked into the building numbers to see if there was two because he showed two building numbers. So I looked into that to see if there were two buildings. One of them checks out as a building. The other one, they can't say whether or not it exists. So it's like, okay. That checks out. Then the foyer requests, what he's saying there, that doesn't check out because she did have enough time to obtain that. As soon as she heard the story, she could've just had somebody just do that. She's not a one man she's not a one man army. She has people, so they could just put in that request and get it within two weeks almost. And then the license plate, that checks out. You know? The California license plates do actually work like that. So you think he would be like, hey. These are the things that she has to answer to when she gets back. But instead, he's like, the story's done. And then on top of that, he's giving her an ultimatum that by Friday, if she doesn't shut down the GoFundMe she has for Mitch Mitch, Harry, Michael. K? If if she doesn't shut it down and send all the money to his, quote, unquote, victims, then he's gonna go scorched earth. Again, this is odd because it's just like, I really like this person, but I'm gonna call them out. And guess what? I just debunked their story. Their story's done. And on top of that, if they don't do what I say right now, I'm gonna go scorched earth on them. That's literally what Balix Tones said. He said, you have twenty four hours. I'm gonna do a report on you. I'm forced to do this. Then he started making videos, then he straight up started attacking her and ranting about her. It's actually the same thing. George Webb, same thing. He went from care about her. We need to protect her, love her, to calling her out and almost chastising her in these posts that he was making. It's just very odd. Again, I don't have communication with her, but if I found all this out, I'd be like, hey. Here's some holes that I'm seeing in this report. So I don't know if you guys know about this already, but you should really check this out. And, get back to me if you can, or I'll just wait till the show, and I'll see it there. That's it. The so I don't really that that's the thing I don't get. Now see, I said I don't get it, but I get it. Right? I also get that Valhalla, he has a deep emotional, despising of people who are caught in toxic situations with their, with their spouses, with their wives. He has zero tolerance for people like that as most people do. So the reason that he feels so passionately about this is because apparently, he's talked to all of the witnesses, all of the victims. He's talked to the guy's kids. He's talked to a bunch of people, and the stuff he's heard apparently is terrible. And we're gonna hear about all that on Friday. K? But, yeah, I just find that weird. I find that weird, and I see a pattern there. K? But, again, out of those three, I don't know George at all. Used to love Balak's Balak's tones. Absolutely. Used to love that content. Not anymore. And think Vahal is actually an exceptional human being, and I like that he has the no tolerance towards that type of thing. But I do think it is clouding him a little bit and pulling him to attack Candace slightly. Because to say you're gonna go scorched earth on her because of the guy that she talked to, I don't know if that's I don't know if that listen. You could do whatever you want. But to me, if you like somebody or if you're friends with them, I don't know if he has direct communication with her, that wouldn't be the route to go. That that route wouldn't make sense in my mind at all.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨LIVE: Calling Fort Huachuca Police Dept To Clarify Candace Owens/ Mitch Snow Story https://t.co/dCBePFQj6n

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 22, 2025 at 4:46 PM

Saved - December 25, 2025 at 11:37 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I’m noting a clear shift: Alex Jones allegedly traded independence for protection from Trump/Elon, gaining DOJ favoritism, White House access, and bankruptcy leeway as long as he parrots the admin line. Step out of line and support dries up. He’s targeting Candace Owens now to shield the narrative. It’s framed as self-preservation, not principle. I’m calling for real truth-tellers who don’t bend. Watch him praise Elon in his own words.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨EXPOSED: Alex Jones Sold His Independence for Trump/Elon Protection In Return He Got DOJ Favoritism + White House Access… And Now That's Why He’s Attacking Candace Call it what you will @RealAlexJones, but the shift is obvious: Still, that financial and legal help—through Elon’s involvement in your bankruptcy—came with strings attached. Everyone knows it. Since then, you’ve received rare DOJ favoritism (under Trump’s direction), exclusive White House access, and breathing room in your bankruptcy case. As long as you toe the line and parrot the admin’s talking points, the support keeps coming. Step out of line? That access disappears, the DOJ stops helping, and you’re left to fend for yourself in court. That’s the only reason you’re going after @RealCandaceO so hard right now. She’s getting too close to truths that threaten the narrative you’re now protecting. You took the help for self-preservation—understandable when everything’s on the line—but it meant trading independence for alignment. You’re no longer the lone voice calling out EVERYONE. Now it’s selective, and a lot of us (former fans included) see it. Your audience knows it too. We still want real truth-tellers who don’t bend. Hope you find your way back. No hate—just calling it straight. Stop lying to yourself! Check out this video below where Alex kisses Elon's ass, and says he's a huge believer, booster and defender of Elon Musk for entering into his bankruptcy case. So don't take my word for what i'm saying, hear it in his own words. Drop a 🤔 if you’ve noticed the change.

@RealAlexJones - Alex Jones

Elon Musk Did NOT Save InfoWars! He Simply Protected X, Formerly Twitter, From an Attempted Democrat Party Takeover That Sought to Steal the Identities of X Users and Operate on the Platform as Them https://t.co/dzKulTKObU

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 25, 2025 at 4:33 AM

Saved - December 25, 2025 at 11:37 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I report that Erika Wulff Jones, Alex Jones’s ex-wife, says on X that he’s not who he pretends to be. She claims he locked her out of their home, handed their daughter to a nanny he’s allegedly involved with, and is threatening jail if she speaks up. She calls him out as out of his mind and accuses him of hate-mongering. She credits GoodLionTV for uncovering this.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨EXPLOSIVE: :"Alex Jones EXPOSED as an IMPOSTER And A "FRAUD" by Ex Wife— Accuses Him Of AFFAIR WITH NANNY, Eviction, Kidnapping And MORE! Alex Jones ex wife just came forward on X with explosive revelations about The "Infowars" Host : "He's a Fraud, Kicked Me Out, Affair with Nanny, Won't Let Me See Our Daughter!". The mask slips further. Erika Wulff Jones – Alex Jones' ex-wife – just torched him on X, calling him out as NOT who he pretends to be. She says he locked her out of her own home, handed their daughter to a nanny he's allegedly "in relations" with, and is threatening jail if she speaks up. "He's out of his mind," she warns. Don't buy his hate-mongering. This from the guy who's been banned everywhere for a reason – now we see why. Instead of slinging lies at Candace Owens or anyone else, maybe Alex should clean his own house? Focus on that shattered marriage and inner demons before preaching lies. Wow, Alex. Real piece of work. The truth always outs. Share if you're done with the frauds. Accountability starts at home. Shoutout to @GoodLionTV For uncovering this. FOLLOW Him!!

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

Video Transcript AI Summary

Alex Jones discusses the current state of Infowars and asserts that Elon Musk has become a major force for freedom, alongside Donald Trump. He states that Musk sent his lawyers to Houston in Jones’s corporate bankruptcy case last Thursday to officially appear and request all data, files, and information so they can review what is happening. Jones explains that in federal filings, Democrats are described as using plaintiffs as a front group and claim they own the name “Alex Jones” and the name “real Alex Jones” on X. He says these filings argue that the 13th Amendment does not apply to Alex Jones, asserting that while people can be bankrupt, criminals, or on death row, they cannot have their name and likeness used without permission or compensation because that would be slavery. He alleges that The Onion, funded by a big Democrat Soros gun control group, admitted on Good Morning America that they won an auction to take his identity and to use the Infowars archive to edit, distort, ridicule, and discredit him, and that the plaintiffs allegedly did not want money but aimed to remove him from the air. Jones points to a plaintiff's statement asking that, with the verdict, not only be given the platform away but that Jones cannot rebuild the platform, effectively removing him from discourse and from continuing to spread what they call misinformation. He emphasizes that Musk’s action is rooted in self-interest, arguing that freedom comes from self-interest and that If one person doesn’t have freedom of speech, it will end up being everyone. He asserts that Musk’s stance is essential to freedom, crediting Musk with actions that counter tyranny, expose corruption, and promote open and free information for billions of people. Jones lauds Elon Musk as a “champion in the real world,” describing him as a maverick who has advanced freedom by providing a platform for broad, open information, and asserts that Musk’s actions have helped to override significant election fraud and to focus attention on cures for other societal issues such as big pharma and Fauci, as well as addressing the potential for World War III. He argues that Musk’s fruits—fighting tyranny and waking people up—are overwhelmingly positive. In closing, Jones reiterates his strong support for Elon Musk, declaring that he is a defender, booster, and extreme supporter of Musk.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: All of my points of contact, my email, my phone, family, the crew, people on the street have just been blowing up in the last forty eight hours asking me what is the future of Infowars? What is really going on? What is really happening? And I will succinctly break that down in just a moment. But first I wanted to take some time out to talk about the game changer in the last few years, not just here in America, but around the world for freedom. Now obviously, we're talking about Donald Trump. But in this particular case, I'm talking about Elon Musk. The only individual that's done more to expose tyranny and promote liberty and team humanity in my lifetime who even begins to rival president Trump is Elon Musk. It is the dynamic duo. And everything he's done in the last two years has been devastating to tyrants and corrupt institutions and has been fabulously positive for freedom in the average person. So I wanted to take a moment out to thank Elon Musk for all he's done and to specifically point out that he sent his lawyers last Thursday afternoon to Houston in my corporate bankruptcy case. And they have appeared officially in the case and have requested all the data, all the files, and all the information so they can review it and find out for themselves exactly what is going on. Now people have asked me, why did Elon do that? And I know the answer. It's because it's in his own self interest at x not to allow them to do what they've been trying the last few months in my case. They have literally claimed in federal filings, the Democrats using these plaintiffs as their front group, that they own the name Alex Jones and that they own the name real Alex Jones on X. They actually put in the filing that the thirteenth Amendment does not apply to Alex Jones, the amendment outlawing slavery and indentured servitude. Because all of the federal cases since then have said, somebody can be bankrupt. Somebody can be a criminal. Somebody can be on death row. But you can't take their name and their likeness and use it without their permission or paying them because that's slavery. Well, they are literally trying to overturn not just your property rights, but your very right to your name. And so now The Onion with this big Democrat Soros gun control group funding it, that's really who did this. They admitted it on Good Morning America Friday, came in here and supposedly won the auction, which never even happened. I'll get to that in a moment. And are saying they wanna take my identity and have infowars.com and use the archive of my work to edit it and to distort it and to ridicule me and, quote, discredit me. And they admit they didn't want money, the plaintiffs. They wanted to take me off the air in these filings as well. Speaker 1: I ask that with your verdict, you not only take Alex Jones' platform that he talks about away. I ask that you make certain he can't rebuild the platform. That's what matters. Take him out of this discourse, of this misinformation, of this peddling of lies, and make sure he can't do it again. Speaker 0: So ladies and gentlemen, this is a big deal. And and when I talk about Musk doing this out of self interest, all freedom comes from self interest when you understand history and common sense in human nature. Musk has said, if one person doesn't have freedom of speech, it'll end up being everybody. So when I want freedom, it's out of self interest. Yes. I want you to be free as well. If I don't have freedom, you're gonna end up not having freedom. And so Elon Musk is a champion in the real world. He's always been a maverick at everything he's done. And and now he's taken that action of being a trailblazer for human liberty to levels never before seen. And without him, we wouldn't have overridden the massive election fraud, and we wouldn't have been able to get president Trump in. And now day one after the victory, he turned his attention to big pharma and Fauci and their crimes against humanity and his attention to stopping World War three. Elon Musk hands down is a hero. And for people out there saying, he's powerful. He's rich. We can't trust him. Christ said you judge a tree by its fruits. And the fruits of Elon Musk are overwhelmingly incredible when it comes to fighting tyranny and waking people up and providing a platform for billions of people to share information openly and freely. So I am a defender of Elon Musk. I am a booster of Elon Musk. I am an extreme supporter of Elon Musk.

@RealAlexJones - Alex Jones

Elon Musk Did NOT Save InfoWars! He Simply Protected X, Formerly Twitter, From an Attempted Democrat Party Takeover That Sought to Steal the Identities of X Users and Operate on the Platform as Them

Video Transcript AI Summary

Alex Jones claims that Israel and the powerful Jewish lobby on the left and right are heavily unified and pushing Internet ID, AI censorship, debanking, and control. He says he has been a victim of this at the hands of the ADL, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the CIA, and the DOJ, alleging “on record in court trying to destroy us and shut us down.” He mentions Sasha Barakolam at the ADL Gala saying he needs to be arrested. He discusses replacement migration and says unwise critics spread lies about him. Jones contends there is foreign EU influence through the EU, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, alleging they, when out of power, asked the EU in the first administration to file false lawsuits to block the US, and that censorship worsened under Biden as Congress watched what Biden was doing. He asserts they used the EU to censor and control Americans by threatening and fining companies, and reports that Elon Musk was fined €140,000,000 and had his companies seized, describing this as criminal time. He says he defends Elon Musk because Musk is leading the way for free speech, as is Rumble. He states he is championing Musk not for money, but because they are suing Musk and attacking his advertisers, with the same law firms that sued Jones also suing Elon. He emphasizes there is no need for on-site collaboration or phone calls to align, claiming they are already aligned and “Simpatico.” Jones references media coverage and articles that describe attempts by Sandy Hook families, the Democrat Party, the Paul West law firm, DOJ, and CIA as wanting to seize his social media accounts. He cites Bloomberg and other outlets to support that the thirteenth amendment applies to everybody, but claims Jones has a special case. He discusses attempts to own his name, likeness, and all his shows and future content, and notes that public filings indicate efforts to take his name. He compares this to Prince’s three-sixty deal with Sony, saying he never signed a three-sixty contract, claiming all his work has always been “free to air, not exclusive license,” with ownership claimed by him, which he says was used in court. Jones explains that Elon Musk cannot own his name or URL on X, describing X as a target to seize accounts and operate in someone’s skin and name, to misrepresent as if they are him. He asserts this is unprecedented and that Elon’s involvement is to prevent them from taking over X, including lawsuits against the ADL and related law firms. He asserts the stakes are “big boy stuff,” criticizing those who talk about him without digging into court rulings. He argues Elon’s willingness to defend him is tied to defending free speech and preventing his platform from being taken over. He ends with personal declarations about his identity as a patriot, journalist, pundit, and other self-descriptions, and asserts his rugged, red-blooded, freedom-loving stance.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Israel and the powerful Jewish lobby on the left and right is heavily unified and one of the main groups pushing Internet ID, AI censorship, debanking and control. And I have been literally the victim of it at the hands of the ADL, the Southern Primary Law Center, the CIA, the DOJ on record in court trying to destroy us and shut us down. Sasha Barakolam at the at the ADL Gala saying I need to be arrested. We're talking about replacement migration. And then I get to have a bunch of unwashed idiots literally that don't know anything about anything just spew lies about me all day. And I'm not worried they're doing that about me, but I'm like, you guys are fools. Because all you know how to do is say you're holy, everybody else is mad. We have all of this foreign EU and Israel and Kirsty armor through the EU and it came out a few weeks ago, Hillary and Obama, when they were out of power putting request in the first administration to the EU to false lawsuits and all this stuff trying to block The US. And it got even worse under Biden because Congress was already watching what Biden was doing. So they were using the EU to censor and control Americans by threatening and finding the companies. And now they just find Elon a €140,000,000. Now I'm talking about criminal time, and Brazil talked about criminal charges, and they seized his companies. People go, wow. Why is he defending Elon Musk? Because Elon Musk is leading the way for free speech, So is Rumble. Of course, I'm championing him, not because he gave me any money, but because they're suing him. They're attacking his advertisers. The same law firms that have sued me are suing Elon. Look that up. So there's no need to have me and Elon like on the phone. Oh, help me, Elon. I'll do this for you. We have the same enemies. We're already aligned. We don't need to talk. We're Simpatico. Got it. We already chose to side we're on. Alex Jones sounds alarm over Candace Owens mental state as Charlie Kirk conspiracy spirals. Now, here's the article so you guys can read what I just said. Sandy Hook families, Democrat party, Paul West law firm, DOJ, CIA, what they're just their front room, want to seize Alex Jones social media accounts. And you read the articles out of Bloomberg, all this they say, the thirteenth amendment does apply to everybody, but not Alex. He has special case. We want to own the name Alexander Emmer Jones, Alex Jones, and all other similar things, his likeness, and we want his real all shows and and also stuff. And they also told the court any future things like they wanted to take my name. Only people like Prince that could happen to because he signed with Sony what's called a three sixty. You can sign away your name and sign away over using it again if you if you leave the contract. I never signed a three sixty contract. Contrary to that, I said everything I've ever done belongs to you. Twenty five, twenty six year old contracts on the site saying free to air, not exclusive license the world, you own my show. That's why they're in big trouble and freaked out now. And that by the way was used in court as well. So why would Elon not when they say they own anything they want on x, they can just go get all these little courts. See, because x was real target to say we can take anybody's sight on there and we can operate in somebody's skin and somebody's name and take over their followers and their supporters and the onion said misrepresent as if we're him. They said that on national TV over and over again. Isn't that a big scandal? Oh, but that's not sexy like just saying he works for the Jews. I tell you what I get from the lawsuits and the attacks and all of it is I get run over by the Israel lobby. Certainly have their tire tracks on me, but see you're not a real man or woman in the arena. You look at me the og thirty one years on air, Changed the world with my awesome audience and you shake your finger at me, you go there's the bad man. He's only on air still. I saw these all these talk shows today. He he has info wars. He has his assets. Elon wouldn't save info wars. The hell he didn't. He doesn't have that jurisdiction in the case. He said, you don't own x. And the court agreed because there's no precedent. That's why it was unprecedented. Was unprecedented. Elon came in to help me because he wasn't helping me, he was helping himself. And when he does that, he helps all of you by not letting him take over x. And all his lawsuits against the ADL and all the rest of them, including the very law firms suing me because they're suing him on other other areas. Got it? See, this is big boy stuff. This is big boy stuff. Why do you I see it. Why do you care of Elon got fired a 140,000,000 by the EU? Well, you you work for him. They're fighting him because he won't censor you, you dummies. God almighty. What I mean? Do you have five brain cells to rub together? So go read the articles yourself. You go read the court rulings. Senator families want to seize Alex Jones social media accounts. Senator families want to seize Alex Jones social media accounts. The Hill. Elon Musk x corp false notice in Alex Jones, InfoWars bankruptcy case. Go read his notice. No. You do what you want with him and his company and his stuff. You don't get his name. You don't get the URL. If we decide to kick Jones off, we will not use his name. He owns that, we own the URL, which is the law. Elon Musk is stepping into the legal fight of relics Jones and voors experts say it's unprecedented. Unprecedented because no one has ever tried to go say, we're gonna take over your social media account that you serve at at the pleasure of the of the big company. That's how that works. You don't own that. And now we own it and we own a piece of your platform. No, you don't. Now you see logic, something these people don't want to use. Now a lot of these influencers I'm not influenced by the way, I'm a patriot and a journalist and a pundit and analysis and a futurist and father and a God God loves God. Influencer comes from the time of Plato and Aristotle and Socrates. And influencers are people that that use rhetoric without facts and reality and logic to convince dumb people. So when the globalist call you all influencers and you go, yeah, I'm an influencer. Just shows how stupid you are. Stop calling yourselves influencers. I'm a philosopher. I'm a warrior. I'm a game changer. I'm a historian. I'm a fighter. I'm a pioneer. I'm an explorer. I got red blood. It's pumping in my big heart fast. I like life and freedom and justice. I like women. I like red meat. I like guns. I like sunsets and puppy dogs and ladies of the night. Dakota, Wellen Jennings. Nice. Don't feel me. Well, Jennings. Me, no. I'm a boy scout every day in the room.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 19, 2025 at 7:43 PM

Saved - December 20, 2025 at 5:08 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I report that the post claims Egyptian flights SU-BTT, SU-BTV, and SU-BTU regularly flew to Israel, despite logs listing them as Cairo-to-Cairo or N/A → CAI. The author asserts the planes disappear off radar only when making trips to Israel and links these flights to surveillance of Erika Kirk and to Candace Owens. A contributor named Ex_Nihilo_x is credited for compiling the data and urging followers to share and tag.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 EXPOSED:Candace Owens Was Right About The Egyptian Planes Tracking Erika Kirk Regularly Flying Into Israel —Flight Logs Prove That Connection. The mystery of the suspicious Egyptian planes—SU-BTT, SU-BTV, and SU-BTU—is finally solved. While official logs list these flights as Cairo to Cairo (CAI → CAI) or N/A → CAI, we now know the truth. When these planes "disappear off radar," they are making documented trips to Israel. These are the exact aircraft implicated in the assassination of Charlie Kirk and have reportedly been used to track Erika Kirk for years. These logs are the "proof" Candace Owens claimed existed regarding the planes' regular travel to Israel. Here is the full breakdown of every time these individual planes went to Israel: ✈️ SU-BTT • January: Jan 05, Jan 12, Jan 26 • February: Feb 11, Feb 16, Feb 18, Feb 23 • March: Mar 18 • April: Apr 05, Apr 08 • May: May 27 • June: Jun 14, Jun 18, Jun 21, Jun 22 • July: Jul 05, Jul 08 (Two Flights), Jul 13 • August: Aug 05 • September: Sep 20 (Two Flights), Sep 21, Sep 30 (Two Flights) • October: Oct 13, Oct 21, Oct 22, Oct 26 • November: Nov 18, Nov 30 • December: Dec 02, Dec 07 ✈️ SU-BTV • January: Jan 05, Jan 08 (Two Flights), Jan 12 (Two Flights), Jan 14, Jan 21, Jan 28, Jan 29 • February: Feb 12, Feb 18, Feb 19 • March: Mar 02, Mar 09 • April: Apr 08 • May: May 10 • June: Jun 17 (Two Flights) • July: Jul 06, Jul 15, Jul 19 • August: Aug 10 • September: Sep 02, Sep 23, Sep 24 • October: Oct 01, Oct 29 • November: Nov 04 (Two Flights), Nov 25 • December: Dec 04 ✈️ SU-BTU • January: Jan 05, Jan 08, Jan 12 • February: Feb 05, Feb 11, Feb 16, Feb 23 • March: Mar 02, Mar 25 • April: Apr 15 • May: May 10, May 17 • June: Jun 14 (Two Flights), Jun 21, Jun 24 • July: Jul 02, Jul 05, Jul 06, Jul 08, Jul 13 • September: Sep 20 • December: Dec 14 The patterns are consistent and undeniable. Every time these planes "fly to Israel they conviently turn off their transponder at the same point to hide the flights. These are the same planes @RealCandaceO linked to regular operations in Israel and the surveillance/ tracking of the Kirk family. Big shoutout to @Ex_Nihilo_x For Compiling this data for me. Everyone needs to be FOLLOWING this guy. RT and Share this post and be sure to tag @RealCandaceO

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨BOMBSHELL: Egyptian Planes Tied DIRECTLY TO ISRAEL – Hidden Flights & Transponder Blackouts Revealed PROVE Candace Was Right! 🇪🇬✈️ My team was able to directly corroborate Candace Owens' claims about the SUSPICIOUS Egyptian-registered planes linked to events surrounding TPUSA Faith Events and specifically following Erika & Charlie Kirk. Candace recently stated with confidence that these planes frequently operate routes to and from Israel, routinely disabling transponders to obscure their movements—a pattern that explains the extraordinary defensive reactions whenever the topic arises. Compelling evidence now confirms this assertion. The aircraft registered SU-BTT completed a flight from Cairo to Israel on October 21, 2025, as verified by FlightRadar24 tracking data. This movement was independently reported by Israeli media outlet Channel 12 News, which noted: "An aircraft used by the head of Egyptian intelligence, Hassan Rashad, arrived today in Israel from Cairo." This documented instance aligns precisely with the operational profile Candace described: Egyptian registry serving sensitive routes involving Israeli interests. The absence of a comparable Egyptian advocacy presence in the United States underscores that the intense backlash originates from concerns tied to Israel. This development provides crucial context to the broader investigation and demands further independent scrutiny. A comprehensive timeline and additional documentation from @RealCandaceO dropping soon. Stay locked. This connection cannot be dismissed. The facts are emerging, and the public deserves full transparency. Make sure you are following my main man @Ex_Nihilo_x Who's brilliant work led to this bombshell discovery. His work has been integral o this investigation. Drop a ✈️ if you see the Israel connection clear as day. RT & Share this evidence widely—the truth is gaining momentum.

Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker argues that there is overwhelming evidence that Egyptian planes regularly fly in and out of Israel. They state they will present that evidence tomorrow, expressing strong confidence in this claim: "these Egyptian planes are flying in and out." The speaker explains that by connecting people who were on those planes to other Egyptian planes, it became clear that these planes are flying in and out of Israel and turning their transponder off each time that they do it. This, the speaker says, now makes perfect sense of why there was mass panic. The speaker also notes a perception of an Egyptian lobby in the United States, suggesting that "these are the usual suspects that act if something is a threat to Israel." They criticize others for not being forthcoming and for gaslighting, adding, "they're trying to gaslight us" and "frankly just pissing me off." The speaker describes themselves as becoming locked in on these Egyptian planes and asserts, "If you keep pushing me and keep pushing me, I will become an expert on these planes. I'll learn how to build an Egyptian plane." Finally, the speaker reiterates their plan: "tomorrow, I will show you how these planes tie back to Israel."

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: I feel very confident that I know why these planes have caused such panic. And it is because there is overwhelming evidence that these planes regularly fly in and out of Israel. And I'm gonna present that evidence tomorrow. I say that strongly. This is the like, I feel very confident saying these Egyptian planes are flying in and out. And notice I'm saying planes because once I was able to connect people that were on those planes onto other Egyptian planes, I was able to realize that these planes are flying in and out of Israel and turning their transponder off each time that they do it. That is now makes perfect sense of why there was this mass panic. Right? It's not exactly like we have a strong Egyptian lobby in The United States. Now we're like, woah. Well, those darn Egyptians again are trying to get TikTok censored. I I mean, every person in the game, Barry, acting. Well, the these are the usual suspects that act if something is a threat to Israel. Okay? Which is they should have just been forthcoming, pretended that it was changing apart. Instead, they're trying to gaslight us and they're actually frankly just pissing me off. So I became locked in on these Egyptian planes because that's how I am. Okay? You keep pushing me and keep pushing me. I will become an expert on these planes. I'll learn how to build an Egyptian plane. The reality is, like I said, tomorrow, I will show you how these planes tie back to Israel.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨ALERT: Three MYSTERY JETS from Dubai, Washington D.C. & Egypt (Including SU-BTT) MEET IN SECRET Paris Airport – 6 days BEFORE Charlie Kirk Was ASSASSINATED🙆‍♂️ Check out what @Ex_Nihilo_x just uncovered. Could be a Coincidence... or elite endgame setup? Sept 4th, 2025: Three

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 19, 2025 at 6:39 PM

Saved - December 19, 2025 at 10:36 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I reveal Erika Kirk’s “devout Catholic widow” image is unraveling. Her aunt Karla Frantzve married casino tycoon Jack Solomon, linking Erika to strong Jewish networks; Karla’s history and Nicole Rothstein (her cousin, not just a friend) show nightlife pasts Erika pretends to deny. Erika scrubbed posts, downplayed partying, and hid family ties while preaching trad values. Charlie’s legacy stands, but the facade cracks. Credit to Mia Stretch for the groundwork.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨SHOCKING: Erika Kirk’s “Devout Catholic Widow” Act COLLAPSES—Half Her Family Is Jewish & Her Cousin Just Exposed the Wild Party Girl Lies!😱 Erika Kirk's "pure conservative Catholic widow" persona is FALLING APART—and the family secrets are insane. She claims no real dating/partying/drinking for years before Charlie, shades wild lifestyles, and presents as fully Catholic traditionalist. But look closer: Her aunt Karla Frantzve (her dad's sister) married casino tycoon Jack D. Solomon in Vegas (2002 marriage cert—30+ year age gap). Meet Karla Frantzve Solomon—lives in Salt Lake City, Utah, studied at University of Arizona, profile still up showing her with Jack. Jack built the famous Colorado Belle casino in Laughlin, restored Jerusalem's Zion Gate, co-founded Israel's armored corps museum at Latrun, trustee for Hebrew University, major donor to Jerusalem Foundation—deep pro-Israel power player with Utah roots. That marriage plugs Erika's family directly into prominent Jewish networks (Rothstein/Solomon names everywhere in records). Then there's Nicole Rothstein—Erika's actual COUSIN (through Karla) but always called "best friend/twin soul/sister/roommate." Nicole's old posts: them at Madonna concerts, Rockefeller Christmas tree, 2AM NYC nights with drinks flowing. Nicole dropped partying videos from their roommate days. Cabot Phillips (TPUSA insider) spamming "I can't stop watching this." Nicole: "that's our girl ❤️" (tagging Erika). Yet Erika goes on national TV: "I didn't drink," barely dated, criticized roommates for heavy partying/multiple men. She lived the full Miss Arizona/model/NYC nightlife before Charlie—fine if true, but why LIE about it while preaching "trad values" and running TPUSA? Erika scrubbed old posts, completely hides the Jewish family side, and downplays Nicole as just a pal. Charlie built everything on authenticity. His widow now leads it. Why hide the cousin? The heritage? The partying past? The facade is cracking hard. I've got ALL the receipts: Karla's FB profile, marriage certs, IG partying proof, donor pages, family ties, Cabot comments, and more. Who's shocked? Drop your thoughts. Big THANK YOU🙏to @Mia_Stretch who's expert investigative skills we're really put to the test here. She and I worked together to compile all of this information. Please Go FOLLOW Her!! RT and Tag @RealCandaceO and let's make sure she knows this...

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 18, 2025 at 12:04 AM

Saved - December 18, 2025 at 3:14 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

I’m summarizing Candace Owens’ podcast claims: Fort Huachuca, the Army intel/drone hub, triggered a massive military-grade bot swarm and psyop the moment she started digging. She cites an eyewitness final meeting there, panic, and scripted smears echoing Oct 7 patterns. A VIP jet, callsign SAM000, allegedly moved Aug 25 from Colorado Springs to Las Vegas, hinting at Kash Patel ties. She promises an Egyptian-planes exposé and eyewitness testimony tomorrow.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨EXPOSED: Fort Huachuca Triggered the Bot Swarm: Candace Owens Links Mystery SAM000 Jet to Charlie Kirk Hit?! ✈️ Listen up, patriots—Candace Owens just went nuclear on her podcast, exposing the massive military-grade bot swarm and psyop that exploded the SECOND she started digging into Fort Huachuca. As soon as Candace mentioned: Fort Huachuca (Army intel/drone warfare hub) The eyewitness spotting a "final meeting" there. The attacks went hysterical. Military-grade bots flooded in—same scripted talking points, coordinated smears, fanfiction lies—exact pattern she saw post-Oct 7 and during her Australia cancel attempt. Candace: "This ratcheting up only happened when we hit Fort Huachuca and the planes. That's where their panic is." New bombshell timeline confirmation: August 25, 2025: Ultra-sensitive SAM000 flight (highest VIP secrecy callsign) lands Colorado Springs (10th Special Forces Group) → Las Vegas (Kash Patel's home). Callsign drops to regular RCH when someone deplanes in Vegas—meaning a top-tier VIP boarded or disembarked. This is the same jet series used for presidential family, Cabinet, Joint Chiefs. Brian Harpool claimed UVU prep started August 24—exact overlap with this mystery VIP movement. Candace: "Federal disaster incoming for Kash Patel. Prints ALL over this." She's bringing the eyewitness on soon to tell his full story—everything checked out so far. The psyop is failing because WE see the panic points: Fort Huachuca + Egyptian planes = over the target. Tomorrow: Full Egyptian planes exposé proving Israel links. Buckle up—the mask is off. Who's ready for the eyewitness testimony? Drop a 🔥 if you're locked in. FOLLOW @RealCandaceO, and go watch her FULL episode from today. Link is in the comments below. Stay focused, family. They're freaking out for a reason. 🇺🇸

Video Transcript AI Summary

The discussion centers on a rapid escalation of online activity described as military bot operations, which the speakers associate with attempts to cancel Candace Owens from Australia after October 7. They note a pattern in which bot activity appears when certain topics are discussed, including Fort Huachuca, the Obas Gai, and Cairo/African plains references, tying these to an eyewitness who insists he saw Brian Harpole and believed there was an all-hands-on-deck meeting the day before. The speakers stress a broader pattern of activity on the same day and say they verified the eyewitness’s account with people stationed at the base. A longer clip from Baron Coleman is introduced, focusing on what it means to see a SAM call sign on a plane, especially those flying from Andrews outside Washington, D.C. Coleman argues that a key piece of evidence in Candace Owens’ story is a jet used exclusively by few people—presidential family members, cabinet officials, and military generals at the Pentagon—present at the location of a high-level meeting the morning of September 9, the day before Charlie Kirk’s alleged neutralization. The jet is described as a Special Air Mission (SAM) jet; the conversation explains that SAM call signs designate flights carrying high-ranking officials, with Air Force One and Air Force Two as the corresponding designated callsigns when the president or vice president is aboard. The flight logs show a jet with the rarely used SAM000 call sign, which indicates a highly sensitive passenger manifest, traveling on August 25 from Joint Base Andrews to Colorado Springs (home of the 10th Special Forces Group), then to Las Vegas, and later a return leg to Joint Base Andrews as SAM658. Speaker 0 questions whether this pattern means a very important person traveled on the flight, noting the call sign changes from a high-priority SAM to an RCH (a less VIP designation) and later to SAM as the VIP reappears. They discuss the possibility that someone significant either boarded or disembarked in Las Vegas, with Venus noted as an empty-flight designation when only the pilots are aboard. The timeline is tied to Brian Harpole’s statements about UVU event preparations, with the August 24 date identified as when intel gathering and hard conversations began, described by Harpole as starting two weeks prior and documented in a decentralized command app. The speakers compare this to “Operation Valhalla,” which they say began on August 24 and ended on August 27. They observe that on August 25, a VIP flight to Colorado Springs occurred, the same day the aircraft flew to Las Vegas, after which the log shows an RCH designation on a subsequent leg, suggesting a less-than-top-tier passenger on that leg. The speaker notes they have multiple emails confirming Fort Huachuca as an intelligence base, reinforcing the claim that the base is linked to covert missions rather than routine operations. They express a belief in the credibility of the eyewitness account about Harpole and say they plan to feature the testimony and related details, including additional flight logs (referred to as the finishing touch on SUBTV) and visuals from a car investigation, on kennethowens.com or similar platforms. The overarching aim is to explore whether Egyptian planes are connected to Israel, which they say would explain a mass panic. They emphasize continuing to pursue these narratives while minimizing distractions from “timelines and delivering this information.”

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: I really sense there has been this ratcheting up of what I have been telling you all year. There are military bots. These are these are military grade bots that are online. I saw them after October 7. I saw these military grade bot bots when they wanted me canceled from Australia. I just recognize the pattern of what they do. They kinda all say the same thing, and it just is meant to get into your psyche. But we recognized this increase in this bodied activity after we started speaking about Fort Huachuca. Talked about Fort Huachuca. We talked about the Obas Gai. He's convinced that he saw Brian Harpole, and we start talking about the Egyptian Plains. All of this is on the same day. We're getting a picture, and that felt really relevant that he believes he stumbled upon this all hands on deck final meeting the day before. And initially people thought, man, I think maybe somebody's pulling Candace. And then we were able to verify his story, people that are currently stationed there. Well, I wanna now and this is a longer clip, but I think it's important because we went through, trying to point to you guys the fact that there is this weird plane activity going to that base. I wanna now play this longer clip of Baron Coleman. He did just a really great video going through and helping people to understand what it means when you see that Sam call sign on a plane that is flying, particularly from Andrews outside of DC. And I'm gonna play this longer clip of Baron Coleman and hope he doesn't hit me, for stealing his content. Take a listen. Speaker 1: Well, tonight, I can confirm that following Candace's show last night, I started some research, and what I found floored me. I don't know who contact who contacted Candace or whether he's credible, but I do know this. If that man or anyone else is running an op on Candace and trying to trap her into a story that doesn't add up, ultimately to destroy her reputation, they planted a key piece of evidence into the story that lends a lot of credibility to what he said. That key piece of evidence is a jet that's used exclusively by very few people. And those people are presidential family members, cabinet officials, and military generals at the Pentagon, such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And that jet was present at the location of the supposedly high level meeting the day before Charlie was killed. I was watching Candace Owens this afternoon, so I know she covered the presence of the jet. I'm gonna go further with that story, but I'll recap for those who aren't aware of the story, and I'll add considerable detail that she did not report. The flight was a special air mission flight. The United States Air Force Special Air Mission exists to provide safe and secure transport to our country's highest ranking individuals. Think president, vice president, presidential and vice presidential family members, cabinet members, occasionally congressional delegations. That particular jet was present at the location of this alleged meeting on the morning of September 9, one day before the neutralization of Charlie Kirk. And that jet had recently flown, for example, president Trump's family back from their summer home in bed Bedminster, New Jersey. I'll show you that in a minute. That flight was after the Independence Day holiday. So this is an important jet. I'm gonna give you a quick breakdown of what are known SAM call signs, S A M, Special Air Mission Call Signs, because it's gonna be important as we work our way through the flight logs of this jet. A special air mission call sign is a designation for airlift missions carrying the president, vice president, first lady, cabinet secretaries, or other VIPs designated by the White House. When the president is on board, the radio call sign instantly becomes Air Force One. But the telephonic ATC call sign on the flight plans and on radar scopes is filed as SAM number, number, number. We'll talk about that in a second. When the vice president is on board, the aircraft becomes Air Force two, but again, the filed call sign is normally SAM number, number, number. The same SAM call sign series is used for other cabinet members. Like Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and the First Lady when they travel on jets. And sometimes you'll see a rare call sign, very rare call sign. It's SAM000. Sometimes you'll see a one or a two. But when you see zeros leading the call sign, particularly zero, that call sign is highly sensitive. It's when the White House or the US Air Force want to be deliberately vague about the exact passenger manifest. On 08/25/2025, this is fifteen, sixteen days before Charlie Kirk was killed, There was a flight on this jet from DC to Colorado Springs with that important and rarely used call sign, Sam000. Whoever flew under this incredibly highly sensitive call sign, Sam000, on August 25 flew from Joint Base Andrews to Colorado Springs, home of the tenth Special Forces Group. It stayed in Colorado Springs for three hours, and then it flew to Las Vegas, arriving there at 04:48PM local time. Las Vegas, you'll recall, is the home of FBI director Cash Patel. Speaker 0: Okay. So he's just delivering the facts. There's nothing here. He's not there's no innuendo there. Later on, he's trying to just think while it's still legal, I guess. And he's like, well, we don't know where J. D. Vance was on this day. I can confirm I was able to dig through a lot and find. JD Vance was in DC. This is not Trump. This is not JD Vance. So that allows us to pull to to come inward and try to figure out who this Sam, very big Sam, us on the special air mission was. Okay? He mentions there Kash Patel. Obviously, we don't have at our fingertips Kash Patel's schedule, but it is intriguing that this flight, as he says, goes into Las Vegas. And we're gonna now show you that flight path, bringing that up. And I'm gonna also tell you why that August 25 date is particularly interesting when I pack it into my neat little timeline. Now because we are looking at data and time zones, I'm going to bring in Mark to Mark explain that August 25 trip and the how the call signs change, which is even more fascinating. Speaker 2: Thank you for using the, preferred term for this, Marksplaining. So on August 25 let me, make this full screen so everyone can see it better. So on August 25, it flies into Las Vegas, lands at 04:48PM local time as Sam triple zero. Then on the following day, the twenty sixth, it leaves Las Vegas as a reach flight six five eight, leaving at 03:14PM. You see the dash at the end there that shows that the transponder data was missing before it lands in Colorado Springs, which you can see on the map here. Let me scroll back down and you can see that it lands there at an unknown time because of that data discrepancy. Then it takes off as a Sam658 flight back to Joint Base Andrews in DC. Speaker 0: Okay. And so when you see that, when you see the call sign changing from an RCH to a SAM, is it fair for me to say that this means that this was somebody who was important and then there was somebody who was extremely important who either got on or got off, SAM being that super, super VIP, which Baron Coleman just explained. Is that a fair description? Speaker 2: I'd say so. It the special air mission designation is usually when there's very high ranking or very important people on board. Reach is kinda like there's nobody's on board. I don't wanna say nobody's, but someone who doesn't rise to that level. And then the other call sign we've seen is Venus, which is a designator for an empty flight except for the pilots. Speaker 0: Okay. So going back to that, look just so guys can see that looking at that August 25 date. So we're seeing that the individual flies in, to Colorado Springs. Now why is this date interesting? Well, we're going to pop into the timeline, and I'm going to remind you first and foremost that Brian Harpole, when he sits down with Sean Ryan, tells us that they began preparations for the UVU event. And I'm bringing up Brian Harpole, of course, because our eyewitness told us that he saw Brian Harpole. He's convinced he saw Brian Harpole walking out of this big Whig meeting on the ninth. Now I can't confirm what he saw, but I can look into things that Brian Harpole has said to the public since things have transpired. And he particularly points out this date of August 24 of having been when they prepared for UVU. Take a listen to Brian Harpole in his own words on Sean Ryan. Speaker 3: How many days prior were you guys there? We generally The permitting process and all that goes on behind the scenes. And then there's questionnaires that are filled out that we used to. There was a lot of busy work. And then so, kind of like in the military, what you did, we create forms that, Hey, let's get this information up front. And so that we have a duplication process so that we can confirm it. And so we started our first, before that one, the twenty fourth of the month prior. And that was with the hard conversations, meetings. You started that on the twenty fourth? Right. We do It was two weeks, at least. Noelle, it started before that with the intelligence gathering and all that. But the hard conversations, the sharing of information, the conference calls, the data sheets. And we put that in a timeline on an app so that this all goes up and every guy that's on that job can see all the intel that comes in. It's a decentralized command model for the company. And so anybody can make command decisions for the betterment of the client or the team. And so everything goes on that app. And so when I get it, they get it. And whoever's gathering that intel, it gets it. There's no hold. There's no power hold on it. And so that first information came in on the twenty fourth, and then the information share starts. Speaker 0: Now, to be extra clear, I am not suggesting that Brian Harpole, obviously, he's not gonna be Sam, and or is he gonna be RCH, but I'm just noting that he is saying that the twenty fourth is when they began this process of intel gathering, for the UVU event. It also happens to be the exact date that operation Valhalla strike begins between civilians and the military. It happened on August 24 and ended on August 27. I'm gonna show you this now on the timelines that you can see that. So then we have the very next day on the twenty fifth, we have this very important character who decides to fly over to Colorado Springs. And then that important character flies into Las Vegas. Presumably, he departs off of the plane. He or she I'm gonna go with he here. I don't know why. I feel like that's right. He is going to get off of the plane in Las Vegas, and suddenly that flight is gonna be an RCH flight. Okay? So someone less important than our initial Sam. I find that to be very interesting, I find this to be compelling. And when I said this to Harry and said, is it possible that this could have been, like, a high ranking Fed? He he said, yeah. It was pretty clear that they were trying to block him. This hence hence them freaking out from seeing who was coming out of that meeting. That was that was the hustle. That's what they were fearful of. He said that there was a an undercover Fed, or he said it could have been an undercover secret serviceman. He was like I said, had this many o sixes, lieutenant colonels, signifies to be that this is like a Pentagon level meeting. Everything he has said is checked out. I am telling you we have multiple emails from people that are currently stationed there. And they have made it clear to me that, Candace, I know you don't know anything about the military, but you should know, particularly regarding Fort Huachuca, it is an intelligence base. It's not where you're gonna scramble jets off of after a terrorist attack. This is where they train people that are in the intelligence community for covert missions. That is why this is significant. They confirmed that building that he said, this guy really does just have the best or work luck ever and just gets out of his twenty five year long NDA and stumbles into another what could be we're keeping this open, another federal operation. And so I think it's important, and I have hesitated to do this for a different reason. I think we need to allow this this man to tell a story and to explain who it is that he believes that he saw that day, exactly what he believes happened since everything thus far that he has told me has checked out. I find him to be incredibly or I should just say, I find him to be actually quite credible. He's very credible. And he's very sincere, and I think it helps. I don't want to be the middle person, I don't wanna be the middleman and tell you this guy's credible. I want you guys to feel the same way when he walked through what happened and how he was questioned and what his sense was of why it was happening. I want you to recognize his experience. I've reached out to him and I've said, look, we've got this last week on the show. Do you wanna come on and tell your story? And he has said, And obviously, I think that we need to learn more about Brian Harpole's whereabouts. And I can tell you that I now know exactly which flight he was on when he came back from Tokyo. That was the thing that I had wrong. I said, oh, well, Tokyo had to have happened at the same time. I was wrong, obviously, because you gained so much time coming back. You essentially fly backwards in time. He actually lands, into Los Angeles on a direct flight from Tokyo, landing into Los Angeles at 06:45PM on the seventh before continuing down to Dallas, getting there very early into Dallas early morning, very early morning on the eighth. It is possible for Brian Harpold to be able to meet to to make that meeting At Fort Huachuca, it is just possible. So we are going to keep prodding this particular narrative because like I said, I sense a panic here that is very real. And I've never I've never seen this kind of a sustained psychological attack on my character. Meaning, they are now quite literally engaged in fan fiction. They're just making stuff up every day. I wake up and I go, I don't even know this is about. None of this is true. And I've realized it's because they wanna deplete our energy. They wanna have our resources go to fighting stupid stuff, and we're sitting here and responding to every tit for tat, and we're not focusing on timelines and delivering this information and reaching out. We only should be spending our time on the Egyptian planes and what happened on Fort Huachuca base. Nothing else and obviously, stuff stuff matters. You have information about what happened on September 10 that matters, but this is where their panic is. These two things it's it's very clear. This is where their panic is. And we I almost just finished the, it's just one more plane, SUBTV, that had the longest flight logs for the Egyptian planes. I just wanted to get the finishing touches on that before we put it onto our website, but that is going to be I know I told you we're gonna do that today, but we're gonna bump that until tomorrow because I do feel confident in stating that those Egyptian planes are linked to Israel, and that fully explains the mass freak out. So we have, well, big days coming up ahead of us, guys. We're gonna have this guy give you his testimony and it's very controversial, but it is the truth and we must follow it. And we are also going to make that accessible for you. Maybe I can even get it up tonight on kennethowens.com. And I also think that we should share I should share the pictures of the inside of the car to the people who have been investigating that and have felt that things were real.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨EXPOSED: Secret VIP Pickup at Fort Huachuca: Plane Goes Dark Then Upgrades to SAM702 – Charlie Kirk Hit Connection? Who Boarded the Ghost Plane?✈️ A significant development in flight tracking data has emerged that may bolster Candace Owens' ongoing suspicions regarding the circumstances surrounding Charlie Kirk's assassination, particularly her focus on Fort Huachuca. On September 7–9, 2025, a military aircraft designated RCH702 followed an unusual pattern: Departed Andrews Air Force Base, proceeded to Colorado Springs, Colorado, and then to Tucson, Arizona. After departing Tucson, its transponder signal ceased. The aircraft reappeared on September 9 as Special Air Mission SAM702, departing from Fort Huachuca, Arizona, en route to El Paso, Texas, before returning to Andrews. The transition to a SAM callsign is protocol-driven and occurs only when a high-level VIP is aboard, such as a Cabinet secretary, deputy secretary, Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, senior White House staff, agency heads (e.g., CIA or DHS), members of Congress on official delegations, or foreign dignitaries. SAM missions typically involve: Cabinet secretaries/deputies — e.g., Defense (Pete Hegseth), Homeland Security, or Intelligence-related roles inspecting electronic warfare/drone facilities. Joint Chiefs Chairman/Vice Chairman — or senior DoD officials overseeing Army Intelligence Center operations. White House senior staff — e.g., National Security Advisor or Chief of Staff on classified matters. Agency heads — CIA Director, DHS Secretary, or NSA for signals intelligence briefings. The lack of disclosure aligns with sensitive visits to intelligence installations. This opacity fuels legitimate questions, especially given timing near reported events. Extensive review of public schedules, White House announcements, and major news sources from those dates reveals no disclosed visits by Trump administration officials to Arizona. The absence of transparency regarding the passenger raises serious questions about the purpose of this stop. Further FOIA requests or congressional oversight may be needed for clarity. Fort Huachuca, a key U.S. Army installation specializing in intelligence, electronic warfare, and drone operations, is central to Candace Owens' inquiries into potential advanced technology involvement.This flight's timing—immediately preceding the assassination—and its link to a premier intelligence facility cannot be dismissed as coincidental. The public deserves full disclosure of the passenger manifest and the rationale for this mission. RT and Tag @RealCandaceO, Transparency is essential to restoring trust in the investigation. Be sure to FOLLOW my friend: @Ex_Nihilo_x for Updates on this story. He brought this to my attention and has been digging deep into all these Suspicions Planes.

Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker references an episode where The Baron Coleman expands on Camp Huachuca, suggesting that the beep on the base could have been involved. The speaker states they did research in response to that suggestion and found a compelling video from The Baron Coleman. They note that there is actually video of Vance on the base, which indicates it could not have been Vance on the base. The speaker acknowledges they are getting ahead of themselves and plans to discuss more about this tomorrow. They describe The Baron Coleman’s video as very compelling.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: The Baron Coleman, if you have not seen the episode where he builds on what I said about Camp Huachuca, that is worth a watch. He kind of suggests in that episode, which I wanna shut down. He suggests that I think he heavily suggests that it could have been the beep the beep on that on the base, Vance on the bay base, and I did then research. So I was like, oh, wow. Wow. Is he right? There's actually video of Vance. So it could not have been Vance on the base. Again, I'm getting ahead of ourselves here. We should talk about more of that tomorrow. But that is that is a very compelling video that he did.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

BOMBSHELL: Candace Owens Walks Out Still Suspicious After Erika Kirk Meeting —Teases Massive Timeline After BREAK-THROUGH Sit-Down (Her Full Response)🕵️‍♀️ Candace Owens just dropped the FULL TEA on her explosive 4.5-hour private meeting with Erika Kirk yesterday, and it's https://t.co/AOq5qQ6vPp

Video Transcript AI Summary

Candace Owens: Shabbat shalom and Hanukkah wishes. Israel has a right to defend itself. Then she riffs about Tucker Carlson and TikTok, but shifts to recount of a four-and-a-half hour meeting with Turning Point USA, Erica, Justin Streiff, and others to address questions and concerns. Candace Owens: She emphasizes she invited Erica and others to answer questions, noting there were no rules in the room for that four-and-a-half hour session; the aim was to get clear answers and understand what Turning Point USA could or could not disclose. She describes the participants: Justin Streiff, Erica, George for part of it, her cousin Mia for vibes, and later George leaving. She explains her goal was to determine why Turning Point USA hadn’t answered basic questions and to address what she saw as miscommunications and lies. Candace Owens: Erica owned apparent lies or miscommunications early in the discussion, explaining that 650 employees can be emotional and that messages circulating on Twitter didn’t always reflect management’s communications. She references a prior interview with Glenn Beck and a viral clip about Charlie’s phone, clarifying Erica looked at Charlie’s iMessages and found he used Signal and Telegram, not regular texting. Andrew Kolbet (Kolbet) told her that Andrew did receive a message the night before the shooting saying “they’re going to kill me,” and she notes that Dan Flood received a similar message; she cautions about confirming the exact wording for Dan’s message. Candace Owens: She contends that some content from Barry Weiss’s interview was planned and not random, and that Barry Weiss asked questions that were directed; Erica said she knew the general idea but not the exact Candace Owens question. Candace maintains she did not recant her suspicions and lists concerns about specific Turning Point USA figures: Terrell Farnsworth allegedly lied about camera disruptions; Blake Neff and Mikey McCoy’s call logs were discussed, with Candace blaming Terrell’s actions and questioning the credibility of Tyler Boyer and Rob McCoy. She notes Rob McCoy does not work for Turning Point USA, contradicting the sense that he was “America’s pastor” at Memorial and that his Wikipedia entry had been updated accordingly. Candace Owens: She discusses the “magic bullet” and the texting around Charlie Kirk’s shooting. She recounts Andrew Kolbet’s claim that a surgeon stated the bullet should have gone through Charlie and could have killed those behind him; she emphasizes Andrew went to the surgeon and claimed permission to post but acknowledges questions about HIPAA. She notes investigators later indicated the surgeon didn’t know Andrew before the tweet, and that Kolbet’s post reflected an unverified account. Candace Owens: She describes the security around the event, the involvement of Brian Harpole in interviews (Sean Ryan) and a lack of certainty about whether he still works with Turning Point USA. She says that investigators are in an ongoing process, that no one from Turning Point USA or Erica has seen new evidence beyond what the public has, and that an May probable cause hearing will reveal concrete evidence. She criticizes media narratives that declare “the evidence is overwhelming” and argues for a cautious, transparent approach, acknowledging she had pressed for more concrete proof before publicly asserting involvement of specific individuals. Candace Owens: She reveals she asked for Mikey McCoy’s logs and confirms Mikey’s real name, sharing that Mikey called his wife first, then his father, and only later added Erica to the call, with subsequent calls involving his brother. She notes Blake Neff’s call with his mother and the timeline around the shooting, addressing discrepancies in various retellings and emphasizing the need for accuracy in call logs. Candace Owens: She mentions the Hamptons retreat and alleged lies, referencing Seth Dillon’s confrontation with Charlie Kirk and concerns about funding offers from BB Netanyahu to take Turning Point USA to the next level, which she says Erica denied knowing about, while noting multiple sources confirmed the offer. She clarifies she never asserted a $150,000,000 figure, only that there were discussions about taking Turning Point to the next level and that the offer’s gravity raises questions. Candace Owens: She returns to Egyptian planes, promising an upcoming interactive timeline on her site showing planes’ patterns and how they tie to Israel, arguing this is part of the broader pattern they are following. She notes that planes regularly fly in and out of Israel with transponders off, and she plans to present this evidence tomorrow, inviting scrutiny of those planes’ activity. Candace Owens: The segment ends with a tease about presenting the Egyptian planes evidence and transitions to sponsor mentions.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Okay, everybody. Shabbat shalom. I just wanna say Shabbat shalom to everybody back at home. Happy Hanukkah to our greatest friends and allies. And, you know, this is a good time to mention that Israel does have a right to defend itself. Tucker Carlson is Adolf Hitler, and TikTok does need to be purchased by the Mossad. It's just how I'm feeling today. I am not different. Maybe you are different. Welcome back to Candace. Okay. You guys are crazy. You guys are absolutely crazy. The amount of people who attacked me for sending out a tweet being like, hey. I'm good. I'm alive. We had a very productive conversation. And they were like, she got the call. She got the call. She's betrayed us. She's doing something else. I can't believe it. This has all just been a show. Calm down. Okay? What do you think happened? Erica said, stop. And then I was frozen for four and a half four hours and and thirty minutes just like as they just put all of these talking points into my head. That is not what happened. I keep telling you guys, I am not governable. I am basically akin to Kanye West. I never felt more seen than when he tweeted a lot of years ago, just fired my manager because I realized I can't be managed. That is me. That tweet right there, was like, oh gosh. Yes. Kanye, that I get this. Okay? Nobody is changing their mind anything. How ridiculous would it have been if I'm doing all of this, investigating, asking all of these questions, and then Erika Kirk offers to answer some of these questions, and I'm like, no. I'm not gonna go. I can't betray the people. I don't want any answers to the questions. I just wanna ask them. No. This is the entire reason we are doing this. We've been looking at the situation going, why can't Turning Point USA just answer basic questions? And I can tell you guys that yesterday, for four hours and thirty minutes, there were no rules. They said you could say you could ask us any question that you want, anything that's on your mind, which I appreciated. And some of you guys are thinking, who is they? Who is they? It's the Jews, obviously. Just kidding. It's Justin Streiff. Justin Streiff was in the room, which is Justin Streiff and Erica. George joined me just for the beginning portion of the conversation because he had that thing going on that I told you on the fifteenth all day. He was in a conference. And then I brought my cousin Mia, you know, the one that has a really bad attitude. I just bring her there for vibes. I think it just confuses people. They're like, I don't I don't understand what's this person doing here. And the reality is she's like always just listening to Cardi B music. But she's my cousin and I always have her a route. And so that was it. She was kinda sitting a little bit away, but at the table, it was just it was really just the four of us until George left. And I will be honest, I did not know what to expect going into the room. I did not know if they were going to be open. I didn't know what Erica's energy was going to be like, if it was gonna be more of an argument, if there was gonna be legal threats. You guys were telling me not to drink water, so I didn't drink water. Well, I brought my own water, but I didn't drink that water too. It was a lot. There's a lot going on. Okay? And the conversation started with Justin Strife very sensibly saying, what are we looking to accomplish here? Like, what is the actual aim of this conversation? And he was pretty clear, and Erica was very clear that they were sort of most upset with what I obviously, a bit of a fever pitch. When I tweeted that it was a godforsaken company, and people should not give money to it. And I have to own that. That's aggressive. That is actually aggressive in the retrospect. I was very frustrated. And I don't know. I just I I felt like we weren't getting any answers, and there were so many lies. And then I was getting attacked for asking all meaningful questions that was within their capacity to answer. And I told you, I I definitely my problem in life is that I can rise to anger very quickly. I shared with them that I've really felt like I was under attack for telling the truth from the very beginning, casually, when I mentioned the Catholicism thing. What was that about? I was like, Look, I say something in a tribute to him. Alex Clark and Andrew Colvet then jump onto a podcast, and they're doing that weird interview, which is clearly aimed at me. And they've teased the interview. It was, like, aimed at me, but they never say my name. And that to me felt like it was the first I don't know. I got the first bit of mud that was slung, which their answer for that was, hey. That was a really crazy time. There a new system had to be put into place, and by no means did Erica give any person the authority to go out and say that the Clawson thing was a lie. It kinda turned into this big thing. Whatever. Okay. That kinda obviously was not the meat of the reason that we wanted to sit down. I will say I was immediately refreshed by the fact that one of the first things that Erica did was she owned the lies, the lies or rather, I guess, would cage it as miscommunications that were coming from various people at the company. Like, look. This is a company with 650 people that are employed. Everybody at this time is exceedingly emotional, and they are communicating. And no matter what somebody says on Twitter, they assume that this communication has come down from management, and that's not always a circumstance. But they owned right away, which felt great, that if you guys recall, we Erica sat down with Glenn Beck. I actually missed this portion, because I didn't get to watch the interview in its entirety, and we were pulling clips because a lot was coming out very quickly. But there was a portion that was going around that was viral, and it was Erica saying that she had Charlie's phone and that Charlie never texted anybody the night before saying that he thought that they were going to kill him. And that obviously reflected poorly on me because I was the one who said that he did in fact text multiple people the night before. And then I went on Jimmy Doerr on Friday, Jimmy Doerr's show, and I clarified. I said Andrew Colvet told me specifically that he was one of the people that received this text message. So I got that first person. I didn't get that from a source. I got that directly from Andrew Colvet. And then somebody who had access to Dan Flood's communications said that Dan Flood similarly received a text message. They owned that right away and explained Erica said that she has Charlie's phone. She's looking at his iMessages, and it turns out that he, like everybody else, communicates on signal. He communicates on telegram. And that those when she heard me say that, they then went and looked and, yes, that what I said was true. Andrew Kolbet received a message the night before, and Dan Flood received a message the night before. Now they asked me if I had actually, like, a concrete a copy of what Dan Flood got the night before, and I said no. Somebody told me what it said, which was almost exactly what Andrew said, which is they're going to kill me. Andrew did not know who they were who they that the they that he was referring to were, but they clarified that the message that Dan Flood received said the left is going to kill me. So I can't confirm that one way or the other. I have to trust them on that because I did not see that concrete message. I was told that it said they. Now, obviously, we discussed the moment, and I'm laughing here because you TikTokers are actually out of control. You guys are gonna be the reason that Israel gets TikTok because you guys are acting a fool all the time. And the videos were so hilarious of you guys mocking the Barry Weiss interview. It's great. It's good to laugh at ourselves. And Barry Weiss is always worth laughing at. But I was sort of like, hey. I felt name checked by the podcaster, Candace Owens, this obvious setup, and then asking me to stop. And it's interesting to hear Erica say that the reason she didn't ask me to stop in the beginning because she she was actually learning things from the show. She was actually learning things. And that I think she similarly felt that Barry Weiss was trying to create a moment. Obviously, it's who Barry Weiss is. It's the Zionist lobby. She's trying to right wrong perceived wrongs because I'm against her side. That does not surprise me. That's kind of why Barry Weiss exists. That's the reason they put her at CBS is because she's just committed to stacking the audience with people that are gonna present the pro Israel cause and talk about antisemitism and talk about, like, crime being on the rise. It's kind of an embarrassment, but I actually do accept that. And I should also clarify that Barry Weiss obviously picked those questions. They were not random, like I told you. It wasn't like people were coming to the mic and it was an open mic and they didn't know what they were going to get. It was all very much planned by Barry, but Erica said that she knew the general idea. Like, they were going to mention me and mention the conspiracies and but she was not given that specific, the podcaster Candice Owens question. So I think that's fair to clear that up. Now, I did not at all recant any of my suspicions. And I understand people disagree with me about particular people at Turning Point USA. I communicated what I communicated in front of the whole world. I my skin crawled after I spoke to Terrell far Farnsworth, the person who took the cameras down. He lied to me several times. I explained to them, which felt good to have that direct communication, how Terrell lied multiple times and that I did not understand why he was there that day. They echoed what he said. They defended what he said that they were trying something new that day, that they typically livestream, which is what Terrell said. They typically livestream and I said every college event. Well, they said, well, yeah, they livestream the events that are tour stops, but they don't livestream the outside prove me wrong type events. And that was something that was new, and it required Terrell. And I said, even if that was all real, if that was all true, I still didn't feel good about the conversation that I had with Terrell, and I can't ignore my gut about the many little lies that he told. I thought the video he recorded was weird. I know he comes from a very powerful family. I personally do not trust him. And I obviously do not like the fact that I said, you know, Tyler Boyer lied about this thing and said came up with an excuse and said, well, Terrell was asked to take the camera down. That's the reason, he said on Twitter, because the police wanted him to take it down to secure the footage. And I said, know that's not true. And they said, well, after all of that yeah, after he took the cameras down, there was a police officer or or fed, whoever it was, that spoke to him and asked him to secure the footage. Well, that makes sense, but it's not a reason for why he took it down immediately. It makes sense that as you're investigating, you're gonna say, who's got the footage? Let's lock it down. But it didn't make sense to me that Tyler Boyer lied about it. And I don't trust Tyler Boyer. And that is never going to change. Similarly with Rob McCoy, he makes my skin crawl. I can't explain it. This is a I look at him and he's a bad person and nobody can make me feel one way or the other about that. I was surprised to learn, and this is kinda gets into, I guess, us not knowing the inner workings at Turning Point USA that Rob McCoy actually does not work with Turning Point USA in any capacity whatsoever. And so him communicating as he has done, like, I'm the pastor on this, I'm that, it's just not real. That is not real. And we should know that that's not real. And when he says that, call him out on that separately from Turning Point USA. I was operating under the assumption that he worked for Turning Point USA. And I said, if that's that's wrong. I I'm happy to correct that. But, also, what were we to assume when he hit the stage at Memorial and said, I'm America's pastor, and then had the Wikipedia updated and said well, I'm assuming he had it updated because who else would do that? That he started Turning Point USA faith. So I guess to be clear, we we were just wrong about that. And I will have a lot more to say about Rob McCoy and where I believe he fits into a lot of things. So I'm not letting up on that. Now one piece of this where I was I still don't understand it and the magic bullet. Okay? Now we all recall what happened. I casually say on the show, hey. I saw the footage. There was no blood. And, honestly, when I when I said it, I I didn't process how big of a deal that was with the 30 odd six. Very quickly, what happens is Andrew Colvet whips up this this tweet about the what happened with the bullet, and he said he had he wanted to address all the discussion that was being had about the online chatter. I'm obviously paraphrasing here. He says, I apologize. It's going to get graphic, but he spoke with the surgeon. The bullet should have gone through. The surgeon then explained that what he's typically seen on these wounds, and, basically, this was all a miracle. Charlie saved lives even in death. And the Internet clocked it, this miracle, the healthy bone. His bone was so healthy, and and the density was so impressed. Like, this is a quote, by the way. His bone was so healthy. I I wanna read it. This is allegedly from a surgeon. Quote. His bone was so healthy, and the density was so, so impressive that he's like the man of steel. It should have gone through and through. It likely would have killed those standing behind him too. And we were just like, that kind of was, like, the beginning of the WTF. Right? I feel like that was kind of the beginning of it. And immediately, people in the comments responded to Andrew, and he said, this individual said, this post is so fake as it would violate HIPAA. Like, there's patient privacy. You can't just call up the surgeon. And then Andrew Colette replies and says, rest assured, I would not have posted without full permission. Now he said he spoke to the surgeon, and they confirmed that Andrew spoke to the surgeon, but that they did not know that he was gonna write that tweet. He did they did not know that he called up the surgeon. So, like, it very much came across to be like Andrew was just flying by the seat of his pants. I I I don't I don't know. It like, he was just flying dark on me. And I was like, that seems very strange to me because why would a surgeon do that? Like, the first thing the surgeon should say is I can't speak to you. I don't even know in theory, Andrew wasn't even there when Charlie died. I don't even know why the surgeon even knows this guy, actually. Maybe he hung around after, but, you know, Andrew was not one of the people that got out the hospital or anything like that. So this is this is quite literally the PR guy who's calling the surgeon. And so that that just seems that just seems very inappropriate for a person to do, period. And I would say it was kind of the beginning, but that was that was what I got from that. Now, obviously, we discussed the security. I brought up Brian Harpole, this interview with Sean Ryan, and I think we can believe turning point when they say that they did not approve of this. They had no idea he was going on Sean Ryan. I think that's pretty clear. I don't believe he works there anymore. So that was kind of him just getting out there and perhaps trying to rescue his own reputation. And I think that that only made his reputation worse, actually, because people rightfully sensed that he wasn't telling the truth in that interview, that he was being cagey, that he was saying things that didn't make any sense. Again, you constantly have these people that believe, like Brian Harppel, that with enough performance, he can sit down and you're just gonna convince people that this is real. And this is just a different time. Like I said, these TikTokers are out of control. They will check you in four seconds. Okay? Things that the biggest piece of this that I wanna communicate and that I did communicate to them, and I hope that they took me seriously on this or that rather that they that they take my strong advice on this. I said, one of the reasons why I really wanna sit down is because I wanna walk out of here and feel confident saying to my audience, hey. Like, there's there's stuff going on behind the scenes, but Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk. Like, that more will come out, but you can take it from me that this is what happened. I was looking to achieve that because there's been a lot of singling from various people, some people who are experts, some people who have been involved in cases that there's obviously gonna be stuff that the public does not have access to. And so it is at least plausible that they have seen very clear footage that we've been asking for of Tyler Robinson getting up there and taking the shot. Like, they have access to UVU cameras. So I was hoping to hear that. And I said that. I was I want to hear why people feel so confident at Turning Point USA that Tyler Robinson is the guy. And at this point, they elected to call the lawyer, like, you know, their their lawyer who is involved in this case, one of the lawyers that was involved in this case. There's always a team of lawyers, especially for something like this. And what I got from the lawyer did not make me feel that Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk. It did not make me feel confident that that he didn't or did shoot Charlie Kirk. I was very surprised by this. He spoke a very long time. I asked, you know, can you share with me what it is? And I said, when you share this with me, I will not say what that thing is if that's what we if we wanna protect the integrity of the case. I'm not gonna if you say, we've got the footage of him taking a shot. I'm I promise I won't say that to the audience, but I will communicate to them that you have something that is solid. And, no, to to the exact contrary, this guy effectively said not effectively. He said that they have nothing, like but the affidavit. K? So what you have, what we have seen is what they have. What what is being discussed publicly, you are this whole, like, nonexpert problem with, like, well, you don't know. It's like what you read, his messages that don't have any dates on it, Tyler Robinson writing out everything in the clean alibi, That's what they have. And what he explained to me was that that's the affidavit stage. That's where that's where it's at. And then what takes place now is the investigation is ongoing. Right? So right now, they're looking for more information. And once investigators, they could very well have, obviously, footage, and that is why they might feel that, oh, we're definitely gonna get this prosecution. But the reality is is they don't actually share that information with the victim. They don't share that information with Erica. They don't in this part of the process, they will not know what investigators have discovered, this is what the lawyer told me, until May. Okay? They will not they have not seen anything that you have not seen is what I want you to know. So with that in mind, I'm sitting here going, why are you signaling why are why do I feel like the the public's being gaslit on this? There's been nothing that's convincing. There are so many commentators who have gone out and said you, it's overwhelming. The evidence is overwhelming. The text messages that don't have a date, that don't even sound real, that's overwhelming. That to me feels really fake and gay. I really do wanna say that to every commentator that is out there trying to tell the public and insisting that if you say it enough times to become real, you're you're actually just being dishonest. And I offered that a more honest way to communicate would be to say, we think he's involved. We feel strongly. I've said that. I think he's involved. We are very hopeful that throughout this investigation, we are gonna get that concrete thing, and that's where we're at right now. That's just the stage that we are at. That is not what we are getting from them. That is, like I just I just feel like that's really important to let you guys know. Let the gaslighting stop. They have what you have. Okay? There is nothing else. They are in an investigative stage. Erica has been named as the victim. They will know more in this May hearing, which is the probable cause hearing. What the lawyer told me. It's probable cause hearing, and that's when they will see the evidence. That's when they get to present the evidence why they are gonna stand there before a judge and be like, yes. We need to move this forward. It's not just an affidavit. We're not pulling together scraps. We have concrete evidence. Until then, until we all get on the same page and understand what else they have, I am very confident stating the opposite of all of my, I guess, well paid peers in that I don't believe that Tyler Robinson pulled the trigger. And what I also said to them was, and I said this in front of the lawyer, because I don't know why I'm like this. I was like, You might need a new lawyer. I was like, Because this person's trying to sell to you that this is solid. One of the rules that me and my husband have is that if have a lawyer that tells you you're a 100% gonna win, it's very clear that you're gonna win, you need to do lawyer. Okay? That's a cheerleader. That's not a lawyer. A lawyer, even if you should 100% win, should be telling you the risks here. I feel good about this case. Let me talk real to you. I feel good about this case, but here's where things could go wrong. I want you to understand those risks that are involved. We don't have this yet. We don't have that yet. And especially given what I told them, which is I'm the only your lawyers or the investigators rather, not their lawyers because they're not the ones investigating. It's the state of Utah that's investigating. They have not called the one solitary person, as I told you guys, who filmed as he was on the roof. Remember the guy that's like, oh, there's somebody on the roof, and he sees him crouched down. I said, I spoke to that person and his testimony would be devastating to your prosecution. He not He saw the person on the roof. He filmed the person on the roof at 12:23PM, and he did not see that person take the shot. And this is not some random student. This is a guy who trains people to shoot guns at a range. He knows guns. Okay? He saw he said what he saw was a smaller gun. He said that this person was dressed in black tactical gear, and there was no recoil. That's devastating to that would be devastating to the prosecution. And yet investigators haven't reached out. Now they offered back, well, maybe they haven't reached out because they have an even clearer video where you and that's that's true. That's actually a good rebuttal. They're like, we don't even have to talk to this guy because the video will speak for itself, and we saw we saw what we saw. There's a they're okay. But wouldn't you still wanna speak to the other guy so you could prepare, I don't know, to to question him something? I I don't like if this investigation is going on, and I've apparently or I feel as though I spoke to more people than they have. I spoke both of the people who filmed videos that day told me that they weren't reached out to. So I don't I don't understand what's happening here. I don't understand the confidence, I guess, is the best way to say this. I told them I do not understand the confidence that is happening. Now another really big thing that happened was they brought me Mikey's call logs. Okay? They brought me Mikey's call logs, and that is why I said, this was a productive meeting. There is no other way to say it. I asked every question, and they came with paperwork to show and to answer and to explain certain things. Also, which was I thought actually kind of sweet that I guess I'm know, I did on this previous show. I was like kinda looking into things into Mikey, and I couldn't find him. And someone said, I think Mikey's not his, like, real name. Like, they thought it was his middle name, actually. And I just assumed, okay. Well, maybe he's using his middle name, and that's why I can't find him. But Mikey really wants you guys to know that is his real name, and it is his real name. I found out shortly thereafter that they were confusing his middle name with they they thought that it was switched. That it Mike Michael is his real name, just to clarify that, because I realized I actually didn't go back and clarify that. But Mikey's Qualogs, big piece of this. Okay? I'm going to, I guess, jog your memory on what Blake said about Mikey that day, and then I'll tell you what actually happened because I don't think Blake has that great of a memory. Okay? Take a listen. Speaker 1: So I was not with Mikey or I don't remember being with him. I think I was ahead of him as we left. And we get out and I run for must have can have been more than fifteen or twenty seconds. And then I realized there hasn't been another shot, so the shooter has likely been detained or stopped or something, not in immediate danger. I pause. I look around me, and I see Mikey. And I see Mikey there. And I'll never truthfully, I will never forget what I saw because I've seen Mikey almost every day for the past two years. I know his personality very well. He's a very bubbly guy. He's a very happy guy almost all of the time. And I'll never forget what I saw because it was clear in the moment that he he was profoundly freaked out. What I'll always remember is the way his his lip was quivering, which I'd never seen before. And you you very rarely see from someone that's he was freaking out. And then I think he literally said to me I I might be imagining this, but I think what he literally said was he's and then he was looking around, and then he says, I I need to call Erica. And he then he takes his phone, and he begins calling Erica. And I don't wanna disclose how that Yeah. Call unfolded, but he did that this you know, your mind extends all of this, but that is happening within a minute of all of this occurring. I remember he calls Erica. I, around the same time, I pull out my phone and I call my mom just to say, mom, there's been an a shooting. You're going to see it on the news. I'm okay. You know, pray for me. I've gotta go. And I remember that call. And around the time I I put that phone away, and then he immediately calls his dad. He calls Robin McCoy, and he says, dad, someone shot Charlie. You need to call all of your pastor friends. Charlie was hit. We need everyone to pray right now. And that's what he told him. Speaker 0: Okay. So that's just not right. And so when he says, I might be imagining this for I'll never forget followed by I might be imagining this, probably means that maybe you forgot and, like, you really could be imagining. Now for me, personally, I think the normal physiological response in these high adrenaline situations for most people is you lock in. Literally your body, when it goes through something, what's terrified and is going through you are really paying attention to details. We've learned about this many times over in health class growing up. This is why they talk about that fight or flight response and quite literally there's stuff happening to your body. And so there's a lot of details here that are just not accurate. And the one that surprised me the most about these call logs is I certainly feel that we were given the impression over and over and over again that the first person Mikey called was Erica. Right? He called Erica. He was we were told this by many people also that he was he trained. Like, like, he almost, like, went to a camp and trained, and Charlie was like, one, three, go and, like, fast. When did he go? Go. Go. That's why he walked away. When did he go? And just told him, this is what the first thing you do is. Well, he didn't do that. Actually, the first person he called was his wife. He called Elizabeth McCoy, and then he stayed on the phone with his wife for ten minutes. And during those ten minutes, he three weighed Erica three minutes after the shot went off, and then he three ways his father, and then he three ways a third person who I am not interested in mentioning because it's not relevant. This is Danny McCoy, by way, is his brother that's in the military, but that's before the shot goes off. Charlie Kirk shot goes off. You know, I have that in detail. Charlie's brought to security. Mikey McCoy calls his wife. They will stay on the phone for ten minutes. K? In that same minute, because we know this because Blake Neff has given us his call log to his mother. Blake Neff called his mom. His call with his mother lasted forty five seconds. So we're assuming it went to 12:25. It very well could have stayed in 12:24 depending on the millisecond. Blake Neff ends that phone call with his mother. Mikey McCoy, after the phone call with his mother ends, call adds Erica to the phone. Okay? So that when he was recapping and he's always glip squibbering and he's like, I gotta call Erica. He's like, and then I called my mom. That's not right. That's just not right. Okay? Mikey called Erica after Blake Neff ended that phone call with his mother. If call logs are to be believed above, you know, human testimony. Mikey McCoy then drops Erica from the phone call two minutes later, and then he adds his father to the phone call. Again, he is this entire time on the phone with his wife. Okay? And then Mikey McCoy ends his phone call with his father. He does call another person who I'm not mentioning is just not relevant to anything. You know, not a character in the story rather. And then he ends the phone call with his wife. And a minute later, his brother calls him back, and they stay on the phone for ten minutes. I did not get this from everybody speaking about this Mikey McCoy collogue. I know that you guys did not get this. I did not get this. I don't know why she was disappeared from this. You could go, the wife wants privacy. No. She was main stage at the memorial, has been, I would say, very involved in a lot of this kind of I think it's very close that she's close with Erica. They went on vacation together, I just didn't I don't get this disappearing act. I find I found that to be like, okay. But but they were forthcoming with it. That feels good. That feels good, guys. Like, wow. We can we don't have to guess. Now we have solid answers. And like I said, when you come out and give solid answers and you're not weird and calling people names and saying all this stuff, it allows people to go, okay. I I feel a bit more like we can trust this process because we have communication. That's the reality. And so I just I wanted to update you with that. Also, another thing that really I think surprised them and I think surprised me is getting back to this Hamptons retreat. And the thing about the Hamptons retreat, and I communicated this with them, that makes me so uncomfortable is how many little lies were told. I think I've been clear about that. Like, Seth Dillon definitively pressed Charlie at this event. Now whether it was in a hypothetical, which it was in a hypothetical, but he got fired up in the hypothetical of Charlie discussing potentially tweeting something against VB Netanyahu, it did lead to this firecracker moment. Again, this is one of those things where I go, why am I always being held out to dry like, hung out to dry for telling people the truth? Especially when I wasn't going, oh, well, Seth Dillon killed Charlie Kirk. I just like, this happened. It factually happened, and yet everybody's kind of putting out these weird statements, and they're not being honest in them. And I was saying to them that made me feel really weird. And I would love to know more about this BB Net and Yahoo offer to fund Turning Point to the next level. At which point, Erica said she was not aware of that happening. It is obviously totally possible that that was kept in the business lane at Turning Point USA. But I'm certain, I said I am absolutely certain that I did not get this from an obscure source that BB offered to fund Turning Point to the next level, and it was part of my frustration with that sit down with Alex Clark where Andrew said, oh, there was not a $150,000,000 that's made up. You know, I told them. Andrew Colvet was my source. Andrew Colvet told me verbatim that BB Netanyahu offered to take turning points to the next level and that Charlie turned that money down. So I said there's a bit of a predicament when I'm being, like, lambasted by all of these voices and people that are attacking me and these paid campaigns. And when I say paid, yes. Okay? Actually have the names of people. Different ways are being paid. Some are being paid by PR firms. Too many are being paid by Prager University, which is upsetting to me because I know Marissa, and it's just dirty. But it's it's especially crazy when people are calling it a conspiracy when I share things that are told to me from the spokesperson of Turning Point USA. K? That's weird. And, yes, they were forthcoming. Nobody's ever denied this. So this was not on our list of lies about the fact that DB Netanyahu did call him. Okay? That did happen. Bibi shared that, by the way. Our source for that could have just as well been Bibi Netanyahu. And not a lot of clarity on, I don't know, the the why some of some people think he didn't make this offer and why definitively three different sources who would have knowledge of this confirmed to me that BB, Net, and Yahoo did indeed make this offer. I never said a $150,000,000 ever, not once on the show. I wouldn't have even said that, by the way. If you said take Turning Point to the next level, I actually would have assumed it was more, if I'm being honest. That's like that's a that's a hefty offer, and it leads to a lot of questions. So there was not a lot of clarity there. Lastly, I wanna add, of course, I was locked in this meeting when people on live were another round of debunking the Egyptian planes. I wanna be very clear. We discussed the Egyptian planes, and I have since worked on an incredible document about the Egyptian planes, which we are going to put up on our website because I realized that when we sent that when we shared that spreadsheet, people assumed that one of the columns, which was actually saying where the planes landed on that day, because it was plus or minus three days, was exactly where Erica had been on that day, and that was inaccurate. And so for clarity, I had been working on the last week on turning it into an interactive timeline that we can put up on our website because I'm certain that these Egyptian planes are incredibly shady and that they were in fact tracking Turning Point USA faith broader events. Of course, Erica was at some of them. Charlie was at some of them. But it is the the pattern here is undeniable. So let the naysayers and people make videos trying to, what are we, fifth round debunk these planes. I also wanna say to you that I feel very confident that I know why these planes have caused such panic, and it is because there is overwhelming evidence that these planes regularly fly in and out of Israel. And I I'm gonna present that evidence tomorrow evidence tomorrow. I say that strongly. This is the like, I feel very confident saying these Egyptian planes are flying in and out and notice I'm saying planes because once I was able to connect people that were on those planes onto other Egyptian planes, I was able to realize that these planes are flying in and out of Israel and turning their transponder off each time that they do it. That is now makes perfect sense of why there was this mass panic. Right? It's not exactly like we have a strong Egyptian lobby in The United States. Now we're like, woah. Well, those darn Egyptians again are trying to get TikTok censored. I I mean, every person in the game, Barry, acting. Well, these these are the usual suspects that act if something is a threat to Israel. Okay? Which is they should have just been forthcoming, pretended that it was changing apart. Instead, they're trying to gaslight us, and they're actually, frankly, just pissing me off. So I became locked in on these Egyptian planes because that's how I am. Okay? You keep pushing me and keep pushing me. I'll become an expert on these planes. I'll learn how to build an Egyptian plane. The reality is, like I said, tomorrow, I will show you how these planes tie back to Israel. And there's there's no there's no disprovingness. So, more on that later. We'll be right back after, throwing in Speaker 1: some Speaker 0: of our sponsors.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 15, 2025 at 8:06 AM

Saved - December 15, 2025 at 2:54 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I report that SU-BTT didn’t depart Provo; it launched from Dugway Proving Ground’s Michael Army Airfield, transponder off until clearing the R-6404 no-fly zone. The jet then “wanted to be seen,” a standard stealth move. Dugway’s secure runway and no spotters point to total secrecy. Likely a week-long US–Egypt joint training, reshaping the Mysterious Planes storyline. What were they really testing there? RT if this blows your mind.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 BOMBSHELL: The Mysterious Egyptian Government Jet SU-BTT Didn't Depart from Provo... It Took Off from DUGWAY PROVING GROUND – America's Ultra-Secretive Military Test Site! 😱🛫 On Sept 10, 2025, trackers showed SU-BTT "materializing" mid-air near Utah with no takeoff from Provo (PVU). Why? It actually launched from Dugway's restricted Michael Army Airfield, transponder OFF until clearing the massive R-6404 no-fly zone. Only then did it "want to be seen" – standard for sensitive ops! Trackers mislabeled it Provo as the nearest public airport. Classic stealth protocol. Dugway = Total secrecy, secure runway, no spotters. Likely a week-long joint US-Egypt military visit/training. This flips our Mysterious Egyptian Planes storyline. But what were they REALLY testing there? 👀 RT if this blows your mind! FOLLOW my bro @Ex_Nihilo_x for updates. His deep dive investigation into these planes was able to uncover this mind blowing development. RT and Tag @RealCandaceO and let's update the plane chart.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 BOMBSHELL EVIDENCE: CONFIRMED NOT 2 BUT 5 EGYPTIAN MILITARY PLANES SWARMED PROVO in 2025 – Direct Flights to Charlie Kirk's Assassination Site. This Is No Coincidence. @RealCandaceO ignited the fire with her timeline exposing SU-BTT & SU-BND shadowing TPUSA events for years—landing in Provo Sep 4, 2025, just 6 days before Charlie's murder on Sep 10. But now? Raw flight logs (screenshots attached) reveal THREE MORE Egyptian Air Force jets in Provo throughout 2025: SU-BTU, SU-BTV, & SU-BGM. That's a FIVE-PLANE ARMADA—VIP Falcons & Gulfstreams from Cairo via Paris, circling Utah like predators pre-strike. Undeniable Proof from the Logs: ▶️SU-BTT (Falcon 7X): Sep 4 Minot → Provo (full inbound); Sep 10 Provo → Wilmington (lighter outbound post-hit). Lingered for Kirk's UVU rally. ▶️SU-BND (Gulfstream G550): Sep 13 Provo → Goose Bay/Paris/Cairo (lag plane, stayed months); May 25 Provo locals—test flights? ▶️SU-BTU (Falcon 7X): Feb 14 Provo → Wilmington; Aug 8 Minot → Provo; Mar 2 Detroit → Provo. Multiple NE/UT hops tied to TPUSA Faith tours. ▶️SU-BTV (Falcon 7X): Jul 2 Provo local; Mar 2 Provo; Oct 2 Provo—post-assassination cleanup? Oct 29 Cairo local, but Provo spikes pre-Sep. ▶️SU-BGM (Gulfstream IV): Apr 16 Goose Bay → Paris → Provo (landed 6 PM); Apr 10 Provo local (55-min flight). Spring swarm during Kirk's Midwest push. These aren't joyrides—government ops with no-scan DoD badges, dropping "experts" for drone/laser hits. Why pave the scene? Why delete footage? Mossad proxies via Egypt? The pattern screams foreign orchestration. Huge thanks to @WeAre_TheElite unearthing these—FOLLOW Them for the deep dives. We're arming the truth squad. CALL TO ACTION: @FBIDirectorKash Release ALL manifests & logs. Tag @RealCandaceO —Charlie deserves justice, not a cover-up. Share these screenshots. This post must explode.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

Holy SHIT!!! @RealCandaceO You need to see this.. Link In Comments https://t.co/NRQTdk3TQm

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 13, 2025 at 10:09 PM

Saved - December 14, 2025 at 2:54 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

I evaluated Erika Kirk’s Fox News interview with the NCI Engineered Reality Scoring System (v8.3). It scored 80/100, signaling overwhelming signs of a PSYOP. Key boosts came from emotional manipulation, tribal division, missing information, suppression of dissent, and framing. The analysis stops short of proving deception but suggests the presentation may be engineered to deflect questions and protect interests after the tragedy. Critical thinking and transparency remain essential.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨EXPOSED: Military Intelligence Tool Reveals Truth About Erika Kirk's Anger – Overwhelming Signs of a PSYOP (80/100)!😱 A new analysis of the widely circulated Fox News interview with Erika Kirk—in which she firmly dismissed speculation and "conspiracy theories" about her husband's death, has revealed significant concerns regarding the narrative surrounding Charlie Kirk's assassination. That interview was evaluated using the NCI Engineered Reality Scoring System (version 8.3). Developed by behavioral expert and former military intelligence specialist Chase Hughes, the NCI system is a rigorous 20-category analytical tool designed to identify potential psychological operations (PSYOPs) in public narratives. It assesses elements such as timing, emotional manipulation, suppression of dissent, missing critical information, tribal division, framing techniques, and other indicators of engineered influence. Each category is scored from 1 (not present) to 5 (overwhelmingly present), with total scores interpreted as follows: 0–25: Low likelihood 26–50: Moderate likelihood 51–75: Strong likelihood 76–100: Overwhelming signs of a PSYOP The interview received a total score of 80/100, placing it firmly in the "overwhelming signs" range. Particularly high scores were recorded in: ✅Emotional manipulation (leveraging grief to discourage scrutiny) ✅Tribal division (framing questioners as disloyal to the conservative cause) ✅Missing information (omitting discussion of security failures and documented inconsistencies) ✅Suppression of dissent (characterizing legitimate inquiries as harmful or exploitative) ✅Framing techniques (positioning the grieving widow against purportedly insensitive theorists) This elevated score does not conclusively prove intentional deception or a cover-up, but it strongly indicates that the presentation may have been carefully engineered—potentially to deflect legitimate questions, protect institutional interests, and consolidate narrative control following the tragedy. Critical thinking remains essential. Healthy skepticism and demand for transparency are not betrayal—they are the foundation of truth-seeking. Share if you believe in pursuing facts over controlled narratives. Major Props to @SCfactsonly who performed this evaluation. Be sure to go give them a FOLLOW!

Video Transcript AI Summary

Speaker 0 presents a Nehemiah analogy: he builds a wall while the townspeople shout at him to come down, and he repeated, “I cannot come down. I am busy building.” She says she feels the same: no time to address the noise, and their silence does not mean complacency. She asserts that Turning Point USA and the handpicked staff loved by her husband are not involved in the alleged conspiracy, and they are busy building. She emphasizes that grieving in their own way, they are trying hard to find answers after something evil happened. Any lead is sent to authorities, with calls to dig into it and not leave any rock unturned, aiming for justice for her husband, herself, and her family more than anyone else. Her breaking point comes when others come after them: “Come after me. Call me names. I don’t care. Call me what you want.” She will not tolerate targeting of her family, Turning Point USA family, or the Charlie Kirk show family, especially when people profit from attacking those she loves. She declares righteous anger, saying this is not okay, a mind virus, and that she believes in the judicial system. She notes their team is working hard, and she apologizes for any language, insisting it’s not okay. Speaker 1 remarks that they have never seen her like this, to which Speaker 0 responds that her reaction is righteous anger. She stresses that their team is human, not machines, and has faced more death threats and kidnapping threats than ever before. The team is exhausted; every time the threats are brought up, they must relive trauma from the day her husband was murdered. She acknowledges that her team is rocked to the core and must endure ongoing public scrutiny and conspiracies. She questions whether the online hostility has intensified because she shines a light on issues, asking what people expected from her. They note that some target her accessories, normalizing an atmosphere of personal attacks. She quips about a “conspiracy collection,” suggesting that those who want to pick her apart can do so—this had been happening even before her husband’s murder. Speaker 0 concludes that the abuse was occurring prior to Charlie’s murder, and both she and her partner have endured persistent, harrowing criticism and threats for years.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Me so much of chapter six in the book of Nehemiah. He is building a wall, and the townspeople are at the base of that hill saying, Nehemiah calling him all these names, saying all these things, come on down. Every single time he had the same message four times in a row. I cannot come down. I am busy building. That is how I feel. I do not have time to address the noise. My silence does not mean that I am complacent. Mhmm. My silence does not mean that somehow Turning Point USA and all of the handpicked staff that loved my husband and my husband loved them is somehow in on it. We are busy building. And you know what I thought? I thought these people are human. We are all grieving in our own way, and they are trying to find the answer to something that happened that was so evil. They are trying so hard, and I get that. We're doing the same. Anytime we hear a lead or anytime we hear anything, we send it to the authorities. Please dig into this. No rock will be unturned. I want justice for my husband, for myself, for my family more than anyone else out there. So for me, you wanna keep telling me to come down while we're we're building? I don't have time for that. Mhmm. But here's my breaking point on that. Come after me. Call me names. I don't care. Call me what you want. Go down that rabbit hole. Whatever. But when you go after my family, my Turning Point USA family, my Charlie Kirk show family, when you go after the people that I love and you're making hundreds and thousands of dollars every single episode going after the people that I love because somehow they're in on this. No. You Speaker 1: know, have to say it. I've never seen you like this. Speaker 0: No. I'm I'm I this is righteous anger because this is not okay. It's not healthy. This is a mind virus. Yes. I believe in our judice judicial system. I do. We have a hell of a team working on this. Excuse my French. But this is not okay. Speaker 1: So you want to put these people back in the box where they've been creeping from? Speaker 0: I don't care what box you're in. But just know that your words are very powerful and we are human. My team are not machines and they're not robots. They are human. We have more death threats on our team and our side than I have ever seen. Have kidnapping threats. I have you name it, we have it. And my poor team is exhausted. And every time they bring this back up, what are we supposed to do? Relive that trauma all over again? They watched my husband get murdered. I have no idea how I would have reacted if I was there that day. And thank the good lord that I did not have to see that happen. But my team, they are rocked to the core. So why every single day did they have to be dragged through the mud, analyzed, hyper analyzed? You know, the conspiracies that are out there, all of the Speaker 1: like. Do you think that there is more of it now because you do shine your light? I mean, Speaker 0: did people just expect you would just go away? I don't know what they expected. I don't know what they expected. Speaker 1: They pick on you because of your accessories. I mean, I've seen some of it. Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. No. I at this point, it's what the conspiracy collection. Get it before Christmas. Like, seriously. It it you will if you wanna find and pick me apart, go right ahead. I do not care. I don't. This was happening before Charlie was murdered. Both of us have been through the ringer of people will call you whatever they wanna

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

Don't be FOOLED By This Jezabel. This entire "Book tour" Is all a carefully planned Psyop to emotionally blackmail us to STOP ASKING QUESTIONS about Charlie's death, About the Egyptian planes, about the alleged FRAUD going on at TPUSA and Israel's role i all of it. Do not be FOOLED. Hold The Line! All you fellow truth seekers, keep asking questions. keep shining the light. We speak for Charlie, If the roles were reversed and it were someone else publicly executed in front of us all, Charlie would be doing the exact same thing we are. Since he is gone and can't speak; We are his voice. We have Charlie, God and the truth on our side... So press forward and stay the path all you brave, righteous, and courageous warriors of GOD! God Bless... 🫶🙏

@victormarx - Victor Marx

Jesus is the only one to hold us tough warriors when no one is around. Last night, the world witnessed one of the most courageous and powerful messages imaginable-from the heart of Charlie Kirk's widow, Erika. Her resolve, her truth, and her strength were undeniable. If people

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 13, 2025 at 9:00 PM

Saved - December 13, 2025 at 11:49 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I describe new claims that Charlie Kirk was assassinated with PETN hidden in his mic wire, not a rifle bullet. Rewatch frame by frame: a thin wire flies off after a shot, allegedly from a microphone transmitter. Experts and Mossad insiders supposedly back this, explaining the lack of a ballistic exit wound. Questions arise about who rigged the mic and why. A livestream breakdown argues the official story is collapsing.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨EXPLOSIVE: Proof Charlie Kirk Was Assassinated with PETN Explosive HIDDEN in His Mic Wire – Footage Exposed!🎇 New evidence has come to light suggesting Charlie wasn't taken out by some "lone sniper" bullet. Rewatch the tragic footage frame by frame—you'll see it clear as day. That long, skinny white wire flying off his body milliseconds after the "shot"? Everyone (including me at first) thought it was his necklace. WRONG. It's the thin wire from his microphone transmitter pack—clipped to his belt or pocket, even though the lapel mic was "wireless." And right then, a mysterious flash and force originates FROM UNDER HIS SHIRT. Explosives experts and former intelligence assets (including Mossad insiders who know these tactics all too well) are backing this: A tiny but lethal PETN charge hidden in the mic wire or transmitter detonated, firing shrapnel straight into Charlie's neck, severing his carotid artery. That explains why they only found a "fragment" inside him—no full bullet exit wound, no matching ballistics from a distant rifle. The official story is FALLING APART. Who had access to rig his mic? Who benefits from silencing Charlie right as he was exposing the deep state? Steve (@stevendenoon ) and I broke this down in detail on the livestream—watch it now below👇 Also be sure to FOLLOW @stevendenoon, him and i have been working very closely together on this case since day one. The truth is coming out, family. They can't hide forever. Justice for Charlie! 🔥🇺🇸 RT and Tag @RealCandaceO Real truth seekers are questioning EVERYTHING.

Video Transcript AI Summary

Speaker 0 explains that the object seen near the right side of his head is not his necklace coming off, but a wire. The wire pops out and then goes back under his shirt, becoming visible again. As it moves, the white skinny wire swings around his body and is seen hanging over his shoulder outside his t-shirt. The speaker notes, “It’s not an earpiece, but okay,” and demonstrates the wire moving over and around his body, finally appearing outside the shirt on the shoulder.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Okay. So I just want to make this real quick to show that it's not his necklace from the right side coming off his head. It's a wire because you can see his necklace from this side. Right there it pops out. Necklace popping out and then it's gonna go back down under his shirt, and you can see it right there. And as that is going back under his shirt, here's that this is what everyone's seen on on the right side of his head. This white wire. Just single white skinny wire. It's gonna swing around his body. And when it does, you'll be able to see it hanging off his often over his shirt, over his shoulder. Ready? Okay. There we go. So it's hanging over his shoulder now on the outside of his t shirt. Swings forward, kind of bounces backwards, and then there it is right there. It's not an earpiece, but okay.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨LIVE: We're PETN Explosives Used To Take Out Charlie Kirk? https://t.co/cVHVo1vOzz

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 12, 2025 at 9:05 PM

Saved - December 13, 2025 at 1:48 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

I summarize Candace Owens’ take: on Jimmy Dore, she exposed old Charlie Kirk clips showing him distrusting official narratives, then says, within 48 hours conservatives flip to “trust the experts.” She claims the same script used on Gaza and COVID is now aimed at suppressing questions, labeling dissent as harmful, with Beck as Fauci. She calls it a Mockingbird Zionist signal and challenges naming a figure who stayed silent during Gaza yet now defends the official story.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨48-HOUR ZIONIST ACTIVATION: How the Controlled “Conservatives” Flipped Harder Than CNN Ever Did! Candace Owens Drops Receipts @RealCandaceO just went on @jimmy_dore and just DROPPED the biggest red pill of the year. They played old Charlie Kirk clips side-by-side: Charlie: “JFK was obviously more than one person… don’t trust the government EVER.” Charlie: “They lied about COVID, lied about the vaccine, lied about ivermectin… keep asking questions or we’re not free.” Then 48 hours after Charlie is executed in broad daylight… Suddenly every big-name “conservative” voice does a 180: “Shut up. Case closed. Trust the experts. Asking questions dishonors his memory.” Candace: “They’re running the exact same script they used on George Floyd and COVID: Criminalize questions. Weaponize ‘the legacy.’ ‘Trust the experts’ – now starring Glenn Beck as Dr. Fauci.” She dropped the ultimate litmus test: Name one person who spent two years silent while Gaza burned, never called Netanyahu a demon, but is NOW the loudest screaming “nothing to see here!” Exactly. That’s the Mockingbird "Zionist bat signal" activated. Charlie Kirk built his entire brand telling us NEVER trust the official story. They killed him… then used his dead body to demand we trust the official story. This is the clearest red-pill moment of 2025. Watch the clip before it “mysteriously” disappears.

Video Transcript AI Summary

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss how to read events and who was responsible, highlighting that “the best reading of what happened there is who wanted JFK dead the most,” with claims that “Israel wanted JFK dead” but that “Lyndon Baines Johnson and parts of our own government and the Cubans” were also involved. They emphasize that there were “like 15 or 20 things that happened that day that were inexcusable,” including changing the parade route, JFK in an open-air convertible, LBJ not riding alongside him, the vehicle slowing down, and the Texas School Book Depository. They argue that “more than one person did it,” not just Lee Harvey Oswald, and that acknowledging that could expose government lies about the assassination. Speaker 0 notes the shift in the public’s trust toward the government and argues that those who now question government credibility previously failed to acknowledge multiple actors in JFK’s death. He asks about the fallout of this shift, noting that the PBD (Patrick Bet-David) show and its audience are pro-Israel and that “70% of those people overwhelmingly agreed with you.” Speaker 2 agrees, stating that “Find somebody who has ignored Gaza being bombed” and who “can call Kansas a demon, but has never once called BB Netanyahu a demon,” will align with protecting the Charlie Kirk narrative. He says the discussion around JFK didn’t make sense within 48 hours and argues that people find it suspicious. He adds that even if one believes “Tyler Robinson pulled the trigger,” you cannot claim nobody else was involved because “we haven’t been told anything.” He says this reflects the same tactics used during BLM to shut down inquiry about George Floyd, arguing that people who supported him on George Floyd would not say “there's no evidence” merely because Floyd had fentanyl in his system. They frame this as evidence that the narrative is being built and that scientific inquiry requires asking questions. Speaker 0 recounts learning during COVID that “it came from a bat in the Himalayas,” that “the vaccine was safe and effective,” and that “ivermectin was horse-paced,” asserting that questioning is essential for freedom. He references a Glenn Beck interview with Erica Kirk and describes elitist attitudes that equate trust in experts with correct understanding, characterizing the exchange as elitist and contrived. He argues Turning Point USA was not built on experts and would not survive if it continues down this path.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: I I just wanna play just a co two quick clips of Charlie Kirk Sure. To to kinda show where he how he thought, and we'll come back and get your comment. Speaker 1: Again, I think the best reading of what happened there is who wanted JFK dead the most. Again, a lot of people said Israel wanted JFK dead. I'd love to hear that argument. But definitely, Lyndon Baines Johnson and parts of our own government and the Cubans wanted him dead and who actually made it happen. There were like 15 or 20 things that happened that day that were inexcusable. They changed the parade route. He rode in an open air convertible. LBJ decided not to ride alongside of him. The vehicle slowed down right when it went by. The Texas School Book Depository. A lot there. Right? And then again, I think that all of us are smarter to believe that it was simply Lee Harvey Oswald. The more important question is not, oh, who did it? We have to first acknowledge it that more than one person did it. Once we acknowledge that more than one person did it, then we can expose our government to have lied to us about the JFK assassination, which then I think will sober a lot of us about trusting the government in the future. Speaker 0: So I this goes back to my original point on how the people who are coming at you and the people who are have just completely flipped their ethos of you don't trust the government, of course, and they don't wanna admit that there was some kind of there was more than one person involved in this. And it's obvious that there was more than one person involved with this. And just I'm gonna play this real quick and then we'll throw to you. Speaker 1: Because I learned during COVID. I learned when they told us that it came from a bat in the Himalayas. I learned when they told us the vaccine was safe and effective. I learned when they told us that ivermectin was horse paced, that you better keep asking questions because it's the only thing that keeps us free. Thank you so much. Speaker 0: And so it's just amazing to me how these p again, it's just shocking to me how they could flip their whole MO. And what do you think the fallout of this would be? Because people see this, right? And most people are going along with it. The PBD did his, even his poll, he's very pro Israel on his show, and even the people who follow him, 70% of those people overwhelmingly agreed with you. So, do you, I still don't, Do you think this is the long arm of Zionism that's Speaker 2: Yeah, I do. I do. And it's very clear where that line is being drawn. Find somebody who has, you know, ignored Gaza being bombed. Find somebody who, like, can call Kansas a demon, but has never once called BB Netanyahu a demon. And you will find that same person trying to protect the Charlie Kirk narrative. It didn't make sense. I mean, within forty eight hours, they were like, no questions. It didn't make any sense. And that is why people find it to be suspicious. And I've said over and over again, even if you accept to some degree that if you truly believed, okay, I think Tyler Robinson pulled the trigger, you could not say that you were certain that nobody else was involved. Cause we haven't been told anything. Can't say that what happened on that day is very obvious and clear. And this is the rhetoric that they're using. And there's I don't think there's ever been a situation where things are less clear and they are using the exact same psychological tactics that they used during BLM to shut down any inquiry about the George Floyd thing. I mean, that was kind of my first video that went globally viral was when I poked holes in the George Floyd story. And I was like, Hey guys, did you even know this about George Floyd? There's more information here. Those people who, you know, supported me during the George Floyd thing would have said, would have never said, Well, there's no evidence. Just because he, you know, did fentanyl his entire life doesn't mean that this has anything to do with this day. It's like, No, these are actually all relevant to building a narrative and to asking questions. Like, this is what it means to embark on scientific investigation. You don't know where it's going to lead, but of course you have to go through the process of asking questions. Well, no, the BLM side criminalized asking questions. If I said, well, maybe, and I did, where's all this money going to? How dare you? George Floyd died. How you're ruining the legacy. It's racism. They're literally doing these exact same tactics. COVID. How dare you grandma's gonna die? Trust the experts. I mean, I was going through Glenn Beck interviewed Erica Kirk yesterday or the day before. And to hear this part of the conversation, which was so elitist, where Glenn is saying basically people don't understand how the law works. How are you not aware of yourself and how much you sound like Doctor. Fauci? Like, trust the experts. Okay. I'm gonna just, like, put a thing on my sign and just say, you know how they do a thank you, Doctor. Fauci besides Emilan. Thank you, Doctor. Patel, Doctor. Paakash Patel. We don't understand. We don't we just we can't possibly understand common sense. Like, it's so crappy. And the reality is, is that Turning Point USA wasn't built on this idea of experts and elitism, and it won't survive if it keeps continuing down this path.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 11, 2025 at 3:03 PM

Saved - December 12, 2025 at 12:13 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

I trace a claim: Pierre du Pont V brokers a “life-changing” funding bridge from the DuPont dynasty to TPUSA, via Netanyahu, tying donor influence to campus surveillance tech and pro-Israel campaigns. Charlie Kirk rejects the deal and is assassinated; insiders say a post-hit money push secures billions for TPUSA through DuPont channels. The narrative links ghost payrolls, audits, and cross-Atlantic influence from Wilmington to Jerusalem.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨The DuPont Dynasty's Hidden Hand: Pierre du Pont V, Netanyahu's Rejected Deal, and the Assassination of Charlie Kirk – A Clear Chain of Elite Influence🇫🇷🇮🇱 In an era where the lines between corporate power, foreign policy, and domestic conservatism have blurred into a web of unaccountable influence, few stories cut as deep as the one unfolding around Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and the September 10, 2025, assassination of its founder, Charlie Kirk. On her December 3, 2025, podcast, Candace Owens pulled back the curtain on a revelation that demands scrutiny: a direct financial and geopolitical pipeline from the storied DuPont family – heirs to a French-American industrial empire – to TPUSA, brokered through Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Kirk's rejection of this "life-changing" deal, insiders claim, may have marked him as a liability to the very elites he once courted. This is not idle conspiracy; it's a documented trail of donor ties, leaked communications, and post-assassination maneuvers that the FBI has conspicuously ignored. As citizen investigators, we must follow the money – and the motives – wherever they lead. The DuPont Legacy: From French Revolution Refugees to American Power Brokers To understand the stakes, we must first trace the DuPont roots, a saga of transatlantic ambition that began amid the chaos of revolutionary France. In 1802, Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours – a physiocrat economist, minor aristocrat, and advisor to figures like Thomas Jefferson – fled Paris after the Reign of Terror. With seed capital from French networks (including ties to the Lavoisier family, infamous for their role in gunpowder production), he established E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in Wilmington, Delaware. What started as a modest gunpowder mill exploded into an industrial colossus, supplying the U.S. military during the War of 1812, the Civil War, and both World Wars. By the 20th century, under leaders like Pierre S. du Pont (1870–1954), the family diversified into chemicals, textiles, and composites. DuPont pioneered nylon, Teflon, and Kevlar – materials integral to modern warfare, from fighter jet components to body armor. Yet this innovation masked darker chapters: During World War II, DuPont subsidiaries supplied chemicals and explosives to Nazi Germany through neutral intermediaries, a fact buried in postwar restructurings. The family's mastery of corporate alchemy – spinning off liabilities like Chemours in 2015 to offload $671 million in PFAS "forever chemicals" lawsuits – exemplifies elite impunity. Today, the dynasty's fortune exceeds $14 billion, spread across 3,500 heirs, with Wilmington as its fortified hub: Delaware's lax corporate laws shelter 60% of Fortune 500 entities, making it a haven for anonymous LLCs and offshore flows. Enter Pierre Samuel du Pont V (born circa 1959), the reclusive heir often described as the "low-profile operator" of this empire. A French-American by blood – fluent in the language, raised partly in Europe, and tied to the family's Parisian estates – Pierre V embodies the dynasty's dual loyalties. Unlike flashier relatives like Pierre S. du Pont IV (Delaware governor, 1977–1985), Pierre V shuns the spotlight, channeling influence through think tanks, foundations, and discreet philanthropy. His role? Stewarding the family's post-2019 merger with Dow Chemical, where DuPont de Nemours emerged leaner, greener (on paper), and more entangled in global supply chains – including military tech exported to Israel. Wilmington isn't just home; it's a nexus of power, blocks from FBI field offices and federal courts, where elite disputes vanish into sealed filings. The Netanyahu Brokerage: A "Life-Changing" Deal with Strings Attached The DuPont thread weaves into TPUSA through a 2025 overture from Benjamin Netanyahu, whose administration has long mastered the art of "influencer diplomacy." Reports confirm Bibi's office allocated up to $7,000 per post for U.S. conservative voices to amplify pro-Israel narratives, a $45 million Google contract in one case. In early 2025, Netanyahu extended a "huge" funding offer to TPUSA – whispers of $150 million or more – aimed at scaling its campus operations amid rising anti-Zionist sentiment among Gen Z. Kirk's September 2025 letter to Bibi urged countering "pro-Palestinian narratives" via tours and social campaigns, but privately, Kirk chafed under donor pressure from figures like Robert Shillman (Jewish backers who pulled millions over Tucker Carlson invites). Owens' insiders – six TPUSA staffers – paint Pierre du Pont V as the "whale": a "life-changing" tech IPO infusion, potentially hundreds of millions, funneled through DuPont channels for AI surveillance, donor analytics, and event drones. Not mere philanthropy: strings included locking in pro-Israel loyalty – more "security" tech on campuses, fewer platforms for critics like Owens or Carlson. DuPont's military-grade composites (e.g., Kevlar for IDF gear) made Pierre V a natural fit for Netanyahu's orbit, where family foundations overlap with Chabad and AIPAC networks. Kirk demurred. Leaked texts (verified by TPUSA's Andrew Kolvet) reveal his fury: losing $2 million annually for resisting donor "stereotypes," rejecting Bibi's Israel trip, and probing IRS 990s for ghost employees and missing funds. A Hamptons "intervention" with Bill Ackman – elite pressure tactics – followed. Kirk eyed a DOGE-style audit, pivoting TPUSA toward transparency over transatlantic cash. To the DuPont-Netanyahu axis, he was no longer an asset – he was a threat. The Assassination and the Post-Hit Pivot: Damage Control or Consolidation? September 10, 2025: Kirk is assassinated at a Utah Valley University event. Hours later, TPUSA COO Justin Streiff allegedly dials Pierre du Pont V – "immediate," per Owens' sources. Damage control? Or securing the billions now that the "roadblock" is gone? TPUSA has since accepted DuPont-linked funds; 2026 filings will likely confirm it. Kirk's pivot threatened billions: rejecting Netanyahu meant cratering elite support from Chabad donors (Leviev, Adelson) to AIPAC influencers. Owens catalogs 10 post-hit "lies" – scrubbed finances, silenced insiders – echoing historical hits: JFK's donor clashes, Rabin's Oslo backlash, Trump's Epstein pivot. The French Connection: Macron, Wilmington, and Transatlantic Shadows Pierre V's dual heritage – French by blood, American by empire – bridges to Emmanuel Macron's circle. The du Ponts never severed Parisian ties: French properties, banks, and aristocratic networks persist. Brigitte Macron's July 2025 defamation suit against Owens? Filed in Wilmington Superior Court – a 218-page behemoth seeking punitive damages over "verifiably false" transition claims. Why Delaware? Secrecy laws, proximity to DuPont HQ, FBI offices, and federal courts – all within blocks. Macron's lawyers, per Owens, operate from the same firms shielding du Pont trusts. Egyptian-registered planes tailed Erica Kirk for years (confirmed by Tucker Carlson). Routed through Delaware pre-hit, they align with U.S.-Egypt-Israel drills. DuPont's WWII Nazi supplies echo Bolshevik-era alliances; today, it's Macron's Gendarmerie (elite ops) training with U.S.-Israel units. Wilmington is the nexus: DuPont nerve center, FBI hub, Macron's legal beachhead – a protection racket since 1802. Motive, Means, and the Wilmington Web: Why Kirk Had to Go Greed and control: The DuPont-IPO was billions for TPUSA's ascent, but Kirk's "no" exposed rot – ghost payrolls, donor hijacks. Post-hit call to Pierre V? Locking in the windfall. TPUSA's $140M post-assassination haul? Elite cash, funneled quietly. FBI opacity? Their Wilmington office sits amid it all. Timeline: Jan 2025 – Netanyahu pitches. Summer – Kirk's donor fury texts. Aug – Finance probes. Sep 10 – Hit. Hours later – Pierre V call. Oct – Owens exposes texts. Dec 3 – Insider bombshell. Sequential elimination. Call to Action: Demand the Audits, FOIAs, and Truth Kirk's death wasn't "lone gunman" chaos; it was to safeguard billions and agendas. TPUSA's silence? Complicity. Owens invokes spiritual warfare: Kirk as martyr. Demand IRS 990 audits, FOIAs on DuPont donations, Streiff's call logs. Cross-reference Chabad overlaps. Protect Owens' insiders. Share, scrutinize, amplify. This exposes how foreign influence colonizes U.S. conservatism, assassinating dissent. The narrative crumbles; the hidden hand trembles. The people will prevail. Special Thanks to @XLuminant who compiled all this information for me. Go FOLLOW Them. To Sources are in the comments below...

Video Transcript AI Summary

Pierre DuPont is discussed as having a difficult time locating this man, identified as “K,” with his father being the former governor of Delaware who passed away in 2021. The speaker provides the birth date 11/14/1959 and notes that there is very little information about this man online. The conversation shifts to the DuPont family more broadly. It is stated that the DuPont family goes back generations and originally made their money from gunpowder, described as “pew pew powder.” The family expanded into materials such as rayon, nylon, and Kevlar. The DuPont fortune is estimated at over $18,100,000,000, and there are 3,500 descendants from this family. The origin is traced to a man in Paris, France, after which the family moved to the United States, specifically Delaware. The speakers claim that the DuPonts are adept at making money, procreating, and keeping wealth within the family. A specific anecdote notes that Irene DuPont married his second cousin, Irene DuPont, highlighting the theme of keeping wealth in the family. Irene and Irene reportedly had nine children. The discussion includes an aside suggesting that a subset of DuPont descendants have committed unhinged actions, which the speaker attributes to inbreeding. The overall narrative emphasizes the long-standing wealth, extensive descendants, and repeated intermarriage within the DuPont lineage, tying these elements to both the maintenance of wealth and certain behaviors observed among some descendants.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Pierre DuPont. So I have had such a difficult time finding this man right here, but here he is. K. That's him. His father was the former governor of Delaware who passed away in 2021. His birthday is 11/14/1959. All that. There is very little information about this man anywhere online, and I do mean anywhere. If you were to tell me that having lots of money didn't make your life easier, I Speaker 1: would look at you like you were crazy. The DuPont family goes back generations, and they originally made their money making pew pew powder. And then they expanded making rayon, nylon, Kevlar. To this very day, the DuPont family fortune is estimated to be over $18,100,000,000, and there are 3,500 descendants from this family. It all started with this man in Paris, France. And then the family eventually moved to The United States, Delaware. The DuPonts know how to make money. They know how to procreate, and they know how to keep it in the family. In fact, Irene DuPont married his second cousin, Irene DuPont. They had to keep it in the family. I guess this was common at the time. Together, Irene and Irene had nine kids. Okay? A few of the DuPont descendants have done some unhinged things. I chalk it up to all that inbreeding.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨EXPLOSIVE BOMBSHELL: Candace Owens CONNECTS Charlie Kirk’s Assassination to a BILLION-DOLLAR DuPont Deal- TPUSA Insider's IMPLICATED! She’s now publicly naming the mysterious “French-American billionaire donor” that multiple Turning Point USA insiders swear got an immediate phone call from leadership THE MINUTE Charlie Kirk was assassinated. The name: Pierre DuPont. Yes… THAT DuPont family. According to 6+ separate TPUSA sources: A massive, secret deal was on the table Not millions… potentially BILLIONS tied to an upcoming IPO Only a tiny handful of people even knew it existed The second Charlie was gone, someone allegedly called this donor prospect to… what? Reassure? Renegotiate? Celebrate? Candace says she forgot the name at first because she was traumatized and drowning in tips right after the assassination… but when she said “Pierre DuPont” on yesterday’s show, her sources flooded her inbox: “You figured it out. It’s Pierre DuPont!!!” She’s now asking publicly: Did Charlie Kirk turn down this money? Was the DuPont deal the “big money” he famously said no to? Why was the TPUSA spokesperson allegedly telling people Charlie “lost out on millions” by saying no to Bibi… and how would the PR team even get a cut? This is starting to feel like a John Grisham novel written by Satan himself. We deserve answers. Who called Pierre DuPont the second Charlie Kirk was dead? And why? FOLLOW @RealCandaceO and Watch Her Latest LIVE to find out more. Link posted in the comments below.

Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker recounts a chain of rumors and revelations following Charlie’s assassination at Turning Point USA. Water cooler chatter and tip-box tips revealed that several insiders were troubled by management and behavior at the organization, and one rumor stood out: Justin Strife allegedly placed an immediate phone call to a donor prospect on the day of Charlie’s death. The caller was speculated to be connected to a donor who had “a pretty big piece of bait on the hook for Turning Point USA”—a billionaire-level investment tied to the company’s potential IPO, described as life-changing money, possibly in the billions. This donor was said to be French American, named Pierre, with the speaker later realizing the donor could be Pierre DuPont, after mentioning the DuPont family in previous coverage. Only a handful of people were said to know about this secret, implying it was highly top-secret within the donations department, to the point where some involved at Turning Point USA had no knowledge of it. The speaker pursued corroboration with multiple sources at Turning Point USA, seeking to identify which donor was so central and why an immediate call would be significant. The possibility that a donor could be so influential as to impact an IPO and be worth billions raised questions about why such an offer would be on the table and whether Charlie himself knew about it. The speaker notes that billionaires typically do not part with money in this way, especially by offering pieces of their company to non-family members, amplifying the sense that the situation was troubling and entangled in dark, secretive dealings. Additionally, the speaker mentions another line of inquiry involving Andrew Colbert, a close family friend. A contact allegedly told the speaker that Andrew claimed Charlie’s refusal of “Bebe” caused him to miss out on millions, which the speaker flags as another rumor to be investigated. The broader concern is understanding the financial and contractual framework behind these tips and whether compensation or “tips” related to donations might be influencingPR decisions. The speaker underscores the need for transparent answers about who Pierre is, whether the donor is indeed Pierre DuPont, and how an IPO-sized fortune could be on the line. The emphasis is on demanding a clear explanation of these alleged connections, the nature of the secret, and the implications for Turning Point USA. The unresolved questions are framed around Pierre, his identity, and the alleged secret that could have changed the organization’s finances and leadership dynamics.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: He said no to a lot of money. But it was actually a tip that I received early on that pulled everything together for me in a really dark way. It was water cooler talk at Turning Point USA immediately after Charlie's assassination. A few people had signified and were speculating and thinking about things that were weird. And, you know, I told you we had so many people from Turning Point USA that were just venting in our tip box and telling us that they didn't like the way management was acting and things were weird. And there were just a flurry of things that were coming in. And a few of them had signified that one of the things that was being whisper whispered about that people thought was quite odd that they learned that happened on the day of Troy's assassination was a rumor pertaining to Justin Strife. An odd an oddly placed phone call that he made almost immediately, as they say. This is alleged. It wasn't on the phone call after Charlie was shot. And I will say allegedly because there's six people at Turning Point USA who have said this, that were talking about this. This rumor got passed around. They said that Justin had placed an immediate call to a donor prospect. And I said, that's weird. Okay? I'd like to know more about that. Can everybody try to figure out what donor that was? Now it's possible. It could have just been a very close donor friend. Charlie had them. He did. There were some donors that he loved like family members. And so that was a potential long shot thing, but just interesting. I'd like to know who he was so close to that required an immediate call. Then it turns out that these ladies told me that this donor actually had a pretty big piece of bait on the hook for Turning Point USA. A piece of their billion dollar company. They were anticipating some IPO and that this was going to be life changing money. Okay? We're not talking like, oh, a check that's gonna be reeled in for $5,000,000 or $10,000,000 or $50,000,000 or like the $90,000,000 at Turning Point USA raised in the first couple of weeks following Charles' assassination. We are talking, like, billionaire money, potentially billions of dollars, and this was a very big secret, a huge secret. Just a handful of people were allowed to even know about this, that this was happening. In fact, there's probably people that are watching this right now at Turnpoint USA who work in donations. I think it's a pretty large department that have no idea. I've never even heard of this because that's how incredibly top level secret this was. Okay? But people began to find out about this because of just an unfortunate conversation that had been left unattended to. Okay? Now why was the secret supposed to be so guarded? Why is this person getting a phone call? I I wanted to know. I wanted to know more. And I start messaging our mommy slews and our daddy slews and all of my sources at Turning Point USA. And I'm saying anything that you can tell me about this in case this might be important. And I got an answer on the name of a donor and I had completely forgotten because again, this happened so early following the assassination. I am talking before I even went to Wyoming. My brain was still traumatized. I had so much information that I was trying to process while I was grieving that I literally forgot the big part that I learned about this donor. I forgot. And these young women told me that this donor was French American and that this donor's name was Pierre. It wasn't until yesterday after we went off air that I presented to you all of this stuff about the DuPont family that it clicked. And these ladies messaged me and said, Oh, you figured it out. It's Pierre DuPont. Question mark, exclamation point, question mark, exclamation point. I had mentioned Pierre Dupont on yesterday's show, and this took my breath away. I will be honest. I was I cried really hard yesterday thinking, my goodness, how could I have forgotten that this donor was French, French American, that that was the big thing. And I was racking my brain trying to figure out that time because I hadn't even considered France's involvement in anything. Like who do I know that's French and has tons of money and is involved in technologies and could possibly be working on a big check that could be kept secret because it's about to IPO and billions are on the line. Then it all kind of came together. And I would like an answer about this Pierre, the billionaire French American donor. And I would like a clean answer as to whether or not it is mister Pierre DuPont. Yeah. Because this would be a devastatingly dark story. And my sources are very sure, very sure that this is what was on the line, that this was life changing money. And they are very sure that this individual got a phone call after the assassination. And I think that we deserve to know. I don't think this should be a secret. Charities shouldn't be a secret. Why? And by the way, it leads to more questions like how could you say that you knew that your IPO was going to lead to billions of dollars? How could you promise that? How could you promise that? And did Charlie know? Did Charlie know? And I'm gonna be honest with you. I know a lot of billionaires, they don't part with their money like that. They don't part with their money and offer people parts pieces of their company, people that aren't even their family members. So why was that offer on the table? I have so many questions and I'm gonna ask them publicly. And I think that we demand answers. We should all be demanding answers because this is now starting to be feel very, very dark. It's too French. Right? It's just too French. We just can't all be hanging out in Delaware. And there's one more thing that came in regarding Andrew Colbert. Very close family friend of Andrew Colbert had messaged me early on. And I again was not tracking any of us at the time, but they had said that they felt that Andrew Colbert was acting weird. And I'm sure that's not a big deal. Like we were all acting weird. Kirk was assassinated. But moreover, they had mentioned that specifically Andrew had told them that when Charlie said no to Bebe, he lost out on millions. Now I'm gonna say allegedly because this is a tip, but I have that tip in writing. I'm not lying to you. And I thought to myself, that is so weird. How could the spokesperson at Turning Point USA be on the how could they be gaining millions from that? What's the structure here of these contracts that even people that are in PR, people that are running PR departments are getting tips on the basis of donations. I don't know how this is working, but we need to figure out how this is working. Think I think it's really important that we that we learn the truth about what happened. Who's Pierre? Is it Pierre DuPont?

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 11, 2025 at 8:39 PM

Saved - December 12, 2025 at 12:01 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

I report that today a judge closed the hearing to the public and media about Tyler Robinson, and expelled his parents and brother so the government could discuss “security measures” in secret. Critics say the gag order and removal contradict claims that his family abandoned him, accusing influencers of pushing a scripted narrative. They call it Soviet-like intimidation and vow to keep speaking out.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨BREAKING:Judge In The Tyler Robinson Case Just Ordered Today's Hearing CLOSED To The Public –Tyler Robinson’s PARENTS BANNED From Watching Their Own Son’s Trial😱 Today Tyler Robinson showed up to his first in-person hearing in civilian clothes. His parents, his brother – the whole family – were sitting right there in the courtroom, ready to support him. Within 60 seconds of the hearing starting, the judge closed the courtroom to the public and the media… and then kicked Tyler’s parents and brother out so the government could discuss “court security measures” in secret. Translation: The same people screaming “Tyler’s family abandoned him! They’re saying goodbye!” just got caught lying in 4K. Jack Posobiec, Benny Johnson, and every $7K-club bot spent the last week pushing the scripted tearjerker: “His own parents turned him in and said goodbye forever… that’s why they’re silent.” Reality check: They’re silent because there’s a gag order and the state just proved they’ll throw family members out of a public courtroom the second they might hear something the regime wants hidden. This is Soviet-level intimidation on American soil. Tyler’s family didn’t abandon him. The system just banned them from watching their own son’s hearing. And the same paid influencers who told you “trust the official story” are the ones who lied to your face about his parents “saying goodbye.” We see you. We’re not forgetting. And we’re definitely not shutting up. Drop a 🇺🇸 if you’re done with the coordinated disinformation. Tag every “Tyler’s family left him” shill you know. The mask is off.

@HumanEvents - Human Events

.@JackPosobiec on the news that Tyler Robinson’s parents have been conducting virtual visits: "I think deep down, in many ways, when they're making these virtual visits, they're saying goodbye, and they're saying goodbye to their son." https://t.co/uEJXsqlOOg

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 11, 2025 at 11:14 PM

Saved - December 12, 2025 at 12:01 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

I describe Candace Owens grilling the “grieving widow” narrative on her podcast, asking if it’s really “very clear” who killed Charlie and condemning emotional manipulation. I note the widow raised $140M, won’t answer donor questions, and praised the FBI tale as “very clear” while the scene was paved on a Sunday. I agree grief doesn’t grant immunity, and her line implying the existence of the suspect hit hard. I’m not stopping; I’m pushing back.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨MUST WATCH: Candace Owens Just Executed the “Grieving Widow” Psyop With One Brutal Question –“Is It Very Clear Who Killed Charlie?”🤷‍♂️ Today on her podcast Candace went straight for the jugular: “Erica Kirk says the answer to who killed Charlie is ‘very clear.’ Let me ask every single one of you: Even if you believe Tyler Robinson pulled the trigger… Would YOU ever describe this case as ‘very clear’?” Dead silence from the studio. Because the answer is NO. Then she dropped the hammer: “This is the final stop of their PR campaign. They’re wheeling out the widow so you feel too guilty to question her judgment. I reject emotional manipulation. And I’m giving every single one of you permission to do the same.” Boom. You don’t owe blind loyalty to a widow who: Raised $140M off her husband’s corpse Won’t answer a single donor question Calls the FBI’s fairy tale “very clear” while the crime scene was paved on a Sunday Grief doesn’t grant immunity from scrutiny. Tears don’t turn lies into truth. Candace finished with the line of the year: “The good news? Tyler Robinson finally showed up in court today… At least we now know he actually exists.” Mic. Drop. The mask is off. The script is exposed. And the emotional blackmail just expired. We’re not stopping. We’re just getting started. Drop a 🛑 if you’re done being emotionally blackmailed into silence. RT so the psyop dies today.

Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker questions the audience about whether the answer to who killed Charlie Kirk and what happened on September 10 is “very clear.” Even among those who believe Tyler Robinson pulled the trigger, the speaker doubts the situation would be described as “very clear.” The speaker notes that Erica Kirk believes it to be clear, and suggests this represents the “final stop” of a PR campaign, with Erica being brought out to signal to the public that her judgment cannot be questioned. The speaker rejects what he calling emotional manipulation and wants to give people permission to avoid the trap of feeling obliged to share Erica Kirk’s conclusions simply because she is a widow and the public cannot cry or question her judgment. The speaker contends that the story presented thus far “makes little sense, if any sense,” and asserts that it “makes, I think, no sense.” To that end, he signals that later in the show they will discuss Tyler Robinson, who has now made his first in-person appearance in court. He frames this as “the good news” that Tyler Robinson exists, indicating a forthcoming discussion of his court appearance.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Do you feel, show of hands, okay, that the answer regarding who killed Charlie Kirk and what happened on September 10 is, quote, unquote, very clear, objectively. Like, even if you are somebody who is on the side of, those who do believe that Tyler Robinson pulled the trigger one way or another, would you ever describe what happened as, quote, unquote, very clear? I'm guessing your answer to that would be no. I am asking you that because Erica Kirk believes it to be so. And I guess this is kind of the final stop. I'm hoping it's the final stop of this PR campaign where they are now pivoting and bringing Erica out to signal to the public that we can't question her judgment. Right? Because she's a widow, we can't cry we can't question her judgment. And I wanna say that I reject that. I reject emotional manipulation. I wanna give people at home the permission to avoid a trap of thinking that you have to arrive at the same conclusions as Erica Kirk, especially when the story that we have been presented thus far makes little sense, if any sense. It it makes, I think, no sense. To that end, later on in the show, we will discuss Tyler Robinson who has now made his first in person appearance in court. And I guess the good news there is that we know he exists.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

Video Transcript AI Summary

The hearing addressed the October 14 audio recording and the October 24 transcript. The portion covering these items would be closed so the court could determine which parts of the recording should remain sealed. All members of the public and press were excused, and the hearing would not be broadcast while the court heard arguments on what should be sealed. After the argument, the parties, the public, and the media would be invited back to resume transmission, and the hearing would proceed with three remaining matters: the motion for limited intervention, followed by the state’s motion to amend or clarify the publicity order; these two portions would be open to the public and press. A brief recess would follow and the judge would issue rulings on all three matters. During the closed hearing, Richard Novak, representing Mister Robinson, requested that Mister Robinson’s immediate family—his father, mother, and brother—be allowed to stay in the courtroom for the closed portion. The state and the judge discussed the request. The judge expressed concern about discussing court security measures in an open public setting and stated that the issue of who may be present in closed sessions could be sensitive. Richard Novak argued that the family members have a unique relationship with Mister Robinson and would comply with any disclosure orders, but acknowledged that the court ultimately had discretion over who may attend. The judge ruled that the family members would be excluded from the closed session, citing the nature and sensitivity of the discussions and the need to treat all parties and the public equally, while noting the family relationship. The court thanked Novak for the request and proceeded to the closed session.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Please Speaker 1: be seated. So as we begin, the first part is we'll begin by addressing the October 14 audio recording and the October 24 transcript. This portion of the hearing will be closed so that I may hear from the parties regarding which portions of the recording, the record should remain sealed. All members of the public and the press will be excused, and the hearing will not be broadcast. This is because I need to hear what should or should not be, sealed or protected and it would, not benefit to have everyone listen to what should be sealed. And so after I've heard argument, we will invite all parties or the public and the media to come back in and the hearing will resume transmission. We will then take up the motion for limited intervention followed by the state's motion to amend or clarify the publicity order. These portions, the last two portions will be open to the public and to the press. After hearing argument on all three matters, I will take a brief recess and then return to issue my ruling today. We will then stand in recess. So at this point, we'll go ahead and excuse the public and the media, and it is the court's order that transmission be terminated temporarily. Speaker 2: Your honor, I we have one request with respect to the closed hearing. May I be heard on that? Speaker 1: Yes, counsel. Speaker 2: Thank you. Richard Novak for mister Robinson. Mister Robinson has some immediate family members who are present, his father, his mother, and his brother, and we would ask the court to permit them to remain in the courtroom during the closed portion of the hearing. Speaker 1: To the state. Speaker 0: My only concern with that, Your Honor, is that we're going to be talking about court security measures. And I don't know that we'll have to go into a lot of detail about that, but I do have concerns about, those issues being discussed in public. Speaker 1: Alright. Mister Novak, do you have authority that supports allowing them to remain in a closed hearing? Speaker 2: No. I think it's subject to the court's discretion to decide who is and is not an appropriate member of the public. I think they have a unique relationship with Mr. Robinson, and they're they would certainly abide by any orders the court makes concerning disclosure of what is discussed in closed session. But obviously, it's up to the court. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Novak. I'm going to rule that they will be excluded as well. It is just given the nature and the sensitivity of it, I believe it is appropriate to treat all parties and the public equally, though I do recognize their relationship with Mr. Robinson. Thank you for your request. All right. We will go into the closed session.

@HumanEvents - Human Events

Video Transcript AI Summary

A new report on postmillennial.com, initially broken by Brian Enten from News Nation, states that Tyler Robinson, the accused murderer of Charlie Kirk, is currently holding virtual visits in prison with their son. Robinson is at the Utah County Jail in Utah County, Utah, where sheriff sergeant Ray Ormond oversees the facility. He is being held in a special unit described as the most restrictive custody level Utah can provide pending trial, and he has been there for nearly three months as of tomorrow, since Charlie Kirk’s murder. Robinson has been in custody for about thirty-three hours after his parents turned him in. The facility housing him is referred to as the special management unit (SMU). In this unit, inmates typically receive meals similarly to others, with cardboard sectioned-off trays and plastic utensils. There is a mention of suicide watch considerations, drawing from the speaker’s experience at Guantanamo Bay with detainees on suicide watch. The cell is described as self-contained, often six by ten or eight by ten feet, with a mattress, a sink, and a stainless steel toilet bolted to the wall, and a flat floor. The discussion then turns to what can be inferred from Robinson’s parents conducting virtual visits with him. The speaker suggests this casts their silence in a different light, noting that some have questioned why the parents wouldn’t go public if they believed their son was innocent. It is stated that they are not going public because they are communicating privately with their son through virtual visits, with indications that Robinson’s parents, Brian Natton and others, have been holding these visits several times a week. This is linked to Robinson’s appearances in court for pretrial hearings; another hearing is reportedly set for December 16. From a parental perspective, the speaker reflects on the horror of Charlie Kirk’s murder, a 31-year-old man described as a young father and husband. The speaker recounts that prosecutors’ documents indicate it was Robinson’s mother who first identified him, then informed the father, who then recognized the grandfather’s gun. The mother and father reached out to the grandfather to locate the weapon. The speaker speculates that during these virtual visits, the parents may be saying goodbye to their son, interpreting the private communications as a form of farewell.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: And breaking news that we have, a new report that's up at the postmillennial.com. Brian Enten originally broke this over from News Nation, but the story goes as thus, that Tyler Robinson, the accused murderer of Charlie Kirk, is now holding virtual visits in prison with their son. And this is at the Utah County Jail in Utah County, Utah, where sheriff sergeant Ray Ormond is over there. There's they've said that Tyler Robinson is being held in a special unit. This is the most restrictive custody level that Utah can provide for him at time pending trial. And, of course, he's been there since, almost, tomorrow will be three months to the day since Charlie Kirk was murdered, and Tyler Robinson, of course, has been there and basically is from thirty three hours on when his parents went to turn him in. So when you see it's called the special management unit or SMU. And, typically, you would eat whatever, whatever the the other inmates would eat, cardboard sectioned off tray with plastic utensils. Of course, you're gonna wanna watch that for you wanna put put him on suicide watch, something I dealt with when I was at Guantanamo Bay putting, detainees at suicide watch, that type of thing. Self contained cell, it's usually six by 10 or eight by 10. We're talking 60 to 80 feet, many of which have a sink and a stainless steel toilet that's bolted to a wall, floor is flat with a mattress. And so, folks, what can we glean from this? What can we glean from the fact that Tyler Robinson's parents are holding virtual visits with him? Well, it really, for me, it I would say it puts their silence in a different light because a lot of people have been saying if Tyler Robinson were innocent or if his family believed they were innocent, why then would they not be going public? Well, we know they're not going public because they're going private. And they're speaking to their son privately through these virtual virtual visits. Brian Natton even said several times a week that they're holding these. So similar to the way that he was virtually appearing in court, Robinson at his various pretrial, pretrial hearings. I believe there's another one set up for next week on December 16. And just from a parent's perspective, you know, I I'll I'll always go back to this as imagine watching TV and seeing something as horrific as the murder of Charlie Kirk, a 31 year old man, young father, husband, and then they put the pictures up of the suspect. I say, this is the suspect. This is the rifle. And you look at it, and we're told that according to the documents, according to the legal filings there by the Utah prosecutors, that it was his mother who first identified him, then she went to the father. They also recognized the grandfather's gun, and then they reached out to him and said, where are you? Can you show us grandpa's gun? I can't even imagine, but I think deep down, many ways, when they're making these virtual visits, they're saying goodbye, and they're saying goodbye to their son. I think that's what it is.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 10, 2025 at 3:58 PM

Saved - December 11, 2025 at 8:04 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I’m reporting that Tucker Carlson breaks his silence on Charlie Kirk’s assassination claims, questions the FBI’s lone-gunman narrative, and demands a rigorous, honest investigation. He says he can’t fully trust the officials. He validates Candace Owens’ Egyptian-registered aircraft claim and notes foreign-registered phones at the event, suggesting foreknowledge. He defends Candace, saying if the FBI won’t investigate honestly, trust erodes. The call is for answers, not spin.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨JUST IN: Tucker Carlson BREAKS HIS SILENCE On Charlie Kirk's ASSASSINATION: "I Don't UNDERSTAND The OFFICIAL Story At All" – And He Just VALIDATED Candace Owens' BOMBSHELLS💥 For weeks, the conservative world has been screaming into the void: The FBI's "Tyler Robinson lone wolf" narrative is a joke. Impossible bullet physics. Crime scene paved on a Sunday. Foreign jets overhead. Charlie's "they're gonna kill me" texts after ditching Zionist cash. Then Tucker Carlson – the man who built his career dismantling Deep State lies – finally speaks. And holy hell, it's a gut punch. In a raw, emotional segment, Tucker says: "I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE OFFICIAL STORY AT ALL." Straight fire. No hedging, no "trust the process." He demands a "rigorous and honest federal investigation" – because the FBI? "I don't have a ton of confidence in... the men who run it." (Preach.) VALIDATES CANDACE'S EGYPTIAN JET CLAIM: "Candace said Egyptian-registered aircraft were following Erica Kirk [Charlie's widow] for years... That's one of the weirdest things I've ever heard. And I just want to say that... is factually TRUE." What does it mean? Tucker: "I've literally no idea. I can't even guess." But it's "very, very strange." (Candace dropped this last month – Egyptian tails? Pro-Israel donor revenge? The dots connect.) BACKS THE FOREIGN CELL PHONE ANOMALY: "A disproportionately large number of foreign-registered cell phones at the event... That's also TRUE." Add that to the pre-assassination X posts ("Everything changes when Charlie hits Utah") – foreknowledge? Tucker: "Those people... have evidence they had foreknowledge." Have the FBI grilled them? Crickets. DEFENDS CANDACE HARD: "What Candace is saying is clearly causing turmoil. Is it true? I can't assess it – I'm a podcaster, not the FBI. But... if they don't [investigate honestly], how can you be mad at Candace Owens... for filling a vacuum?" Boom. The system's failure created her spotlight. And why do people trust her? "They sense the purity of her intent... Do I trust Candace more than your average DOJ official? Are you joking? It's not even close." Tucker nails the absurdity: "Why do you think [assassins] acted alone? When was the last time YOU acted alone in anything?" Life's not solo ops – especially when foreign intel's in play. He calls for basics: Interview the X posters. Explain the radicalization. Restore trust with facts, not spin. This isn't Tucker "going Candace." It's Tucker being Tucker: Demand evidence, expose rot, protect truth-tellers. The man who grilled Fauci on COVID lies now eyes the Kirk cover-up. And with his platform? This lights the fuse. FBI/DOJ: Your "lone gunman" fairy tale just got torched by America's biggest skeptic. Time to investigate – or admit you're part of the problem. @RealCandaceO – vindicated again. @TuckerCarlson – thank you for the backup. The truth avalanche rolls on. \Who's with Tucker and Candace? Drop a 🔥 if the official story stinks. RT to force the probe. Justice for Charlie – NOW. Clip provided to me by: @SaiKate108 FOLLOW Her!

Video Transcript AI Summary

The discussion centers on Charlie Kirk and the handling of his death. The speakers are uncertain about the official account and call for a truly rigorous and honest federal investigation. Specific points raised include: - A claim that Canada said Egyptian-registered aircraft followed Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, around for years in various places; the speaker asserts this is factually true and notes it is a very strange data point, though its meaning is unclear. - A claim that Erika Kirk’s event had a disproportionately large number of foreign-registered cell phones, which is also stated as true. - The speakers emphasize that the FBI has a moral and legal obligation to investigate openly and to consider all possibilities, applying the same process as in science, journalism, and law enforcement. They express a lack of confidence in the FBI and the officials who run it, and argue that honesty and a coherent narrative are needed to restore public trust. - Foreknowledge of the incident is discussed: posts on X allegedly predicted that Charlie Kirk would be killed on the date of the college event in Utah. The question is raised about whether those posts were just guessing and whether those involved have been interviewed by the FBI to determine how they knew what they knew. - The speakers compare the investigation to other events, suggesting that if they investigated, they would examine who publicly posted foreknowledge and seek detailed explanations: who they spoke to, what they know, and how to verify it. - There is a request for an explanation of how the killer transformed into a radical, violent actor, with a note that the speaker does not automatically endorse trans ideologies but wants to understand the radicalization process. - The speakers discuss Candace Owens’ role: the controversy and turmoil surrounding her claims, and the idea that those in authority are responsible for the investigation, not individuals like Candace or podcasters. - A concluding sentiment expresses greater trust in Candace Owens’ intent than in the average DOJ official, framing Candace’s presence as filling a vacuum left by authorities, while insisting that the people in charge must restore confidence through honest reporting and a plausible narrative.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Who was Charlie Kirk? Speaker 1: Yep. Oh, really? No. Yeah. I didn't know that. And I love his wife and know his wife well. And so I feel emotional about it. So, you know, I just haven't wanted everything to do with it. But I will say a couple of things. I don't understand the official story at all. Speaker 0: Was Of his assassination? Speaker 1: I don't. I don't understand it. And I want to make sure that there is a like a truly rigorous and honest federal investigation of it. And I'm definitely concerned about that, a. B, I think that one of the I don't know many of the details, but I know that recently, Canada said that Egyptian registered aircraft were following Erika Kirk, Charlie's widow, around for a number of years in different places in the world. That's one of the weirdest things I've ever heard, and I just wanna say that that is factually true. That's true. So that's like the one data point that I happen to know is true. What does that mean? I have literally no idea. I can't even guess, but that's very, very strange. Speaker 0: And what does Egyptian could mean aircraft from Egypt. Who knows? Speaker 1: I think that they were registered in Egypt. And so but that fact is true. So I that enough and also her claim that, you know, there were kind of a disproportionately large number of foreign registered cell phones at the event. That's also true. So what does that add up to? I don't know. But it means that, you know, the FBI has a moral and legal obligation to look in every direction and to be open minded as you would in any investigation, in journalism, in science. It's all the same process. I don't know the answer, and I'm going to sift through everything as open mindedly as I can, as honestly as I can to get to what the truth is. Again, that's science, that's law enforcement, that's journalism. It's all the same. That's justice. And I just want to make sure that is happening. And I just don't have a ton of confidence in the FBI or the men who run it. And I'm not saying that out of ignorance at all. That's a scary part, too. What Candace is saying is clearly causing a lot of turmoil. Is it true or not? I can't assess it. I'm not the FBI. I'm a freaking podcaster, but I do know how the system works and it's really simple. The FBI has this case and of course the state of Utah. It's their job to not only find out what happened, present it to the public in a way that restores some confidence that you can like have justice in this country. We have functioning law enforcement. I don't have confidence in that because there's lot of evidence that we don't have that. So restore confidence by being honest and telling a story that makes sense. So why if they don't do that and they haven't done that, they have not done that, how can you be mad at Candace Owens or anyone else for filling a vacuum that they left? Well, Candace is back. Okay. No. The people with the authority are the ones responsible and they're the ones who should be held responsible when there's a failure. Not some podcaster, not me, not you, not Candace, the people whose job it is. And their default assumption was we acted alone. Really? Why do you think that? What about life suggests that people typically act alone? When was the last time you acted alone in anything? I don't go you know, right. So A. B, we know that people had foreknowledge of this because they posted about it on X and said Charlie Kirk is gonna be killed on this date. And he was. Speaker 0: Is that true? Speaker 1: Yes. It's true. But were Speaker 0: they just guessing? Was it a guessing thing where every day they would do that? Speaker 1: Maybe. Maybe. Have those people been interviewed? Have they been hauled into FBI HQ and had a long conversation with how they knew that? Like, let's get really specific. Why did you post that? Who have you talked to? Like, if I were doing this investigation because I spent my whole life doing noncriminal investigations called journalism, Like what do we know is true? How do we find out? Call everybody. Be open minded. It's like a very it's the same process. If I was doing this investigation, they would be at the very top of the list. We know because we've got public postings on Twitter that people know just like a nine eleven. We know people bet against American Airlines and the banks that were in the World Trade Centers. They shorted those stocks. Those people clearly had foreknowledge of nineeleven. Who were those people? We still don't know. So I would start there. Speaker 0: But so you're saying that just the fact that there could possibly be some foreknowledge to be investigated? Speaker 1: Well, there was foreknowledge because they were I saw the tweets. And so there were I saw at least two that said, you know, everything's going to change when Charlie Kirk gets to the college in Utah. So those people, I'm not saying they're part of a conspiracy, but they have there's evidence that they had foreknowledge. Okay. So that's where you begin. And then I could go on. Like, tell me how this guy who seemed normal became a radical trans furry murderer. It's not enough to tell me oh trans. I'm not pro trans by the way. Speaker 0: But was that the guy or his boyfriend? Speaker 1: Well exactly. Exactly right. Tell me how this guy became so radicalized that he murdered a stranger. I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying I want an explanation for how it happened. Why wouldn't I? Why do people like Candace so much? She's an amazing broadcaster. Yes. Because they sense in her she might be wrong. Is she lying to me? Not on purpose. They sense the purity of her intent. That's the truth. And I can say as someone who's dealt with government officials my whole life, I'm not vouching for everything Candace claims. I don't even know a lot of what she claims because I'm working on other stuff, and it makes me sad also. But the point is, do I trust Candice more than I trust your average DOJ official? Are you joking? It's not even close, dude. Yeah.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 BOMBSHELL BREAKING: 12 ISRAELI CELL PHONES ON UVU GROUNDS DURING CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION—TRUMP'S FBI DESPERATELY COVERING IT UP! @RealCandaceO Just CONFIRMED. On Sept. 10, 2025—the day Charlie Kirk was publicly executed at Utah Valley University—12 personal cell phones registered in ISRAEL were pinging right there on the ground. Not VPNs, not proxies. Actual accounts opened in Israel, active at the scene during the chaos. The NSA knows. Kash Patel knows. The "most transparent" Trump admin knows—and they're burying it deep. Why the Epstein-level stonewall? Charlie's "greatest ally" Israel—pressuring him until his dying breath—suddenly off-limits? True friends don't hide this. High-level spooks are rattled for a reason. Shoutout to early whistleblowers like @villagecrzyldy on X who's been ahead of the curve)—rumors swirled, but now it's ironclad. I challenge the Zionist-leaning Trump team: DENY IT. Step up, Kash—done with the girlfriend drama? Address this. If it's "nothing," prove it. This isn't conspiracy—it's accountability. Who's with me exposing the truth? Tag @FBIDirectorKash —RELEASE THE DATA. Who owned them? Why suppress? Charlie's murder demands ZERO secrets. RT to force answers. The cover-up ends NOW.

Video Transcript AI Summary

Speaker 0 claims to have explosive, verifiable information that can publicly challenge the Zionist-occupied Trump administration to deny it if untrue. They urge Kash Patel to deny the claim if it is false, noting that the information is highly relevant. They credit Mel, who they say was early with the reporting, and say they had heard rumors but sought verifiable proof before going on the limb to assert authenticity. The core assertion is that there were 12 Israeli cell phones on the ground at Utah Valley University on the day Charlie Kirk was assassinated. The speaker clarifies that these were not VPNs routed through Israel, but 12 personal cell phone accounts opened in Israel. They claim these accounts were on the ground at Utah Valley University on September 10, the day Charlie Kirk was shot. The speaker states that the NSA knows this, Kash Patel knows this, and people in the current administration know that too, and are desperate to keep the information from the public. They question why the administration would want to suppress the information and why it would spook those at the top, suggesting that if there is nothing to hide, there would be nothing to hide. To anticipate counterarguments, the speaker plays devil’s advocate, noting that perhaps the cell phones belonged to exchange students or Israelis touring UVU that day, or that 12 American students had Israeli-based cell phones after returning from a summer abroad and wished to keep them running in Utah. They acknowledge they do not know the answer and express a desire to know, emphasizing the need to uncover why this information is being concealed and who those 12 Israeli cell phones belonged to. Throughout, the speaker refrains from evaluating the claims’ truth and simply presents the asserted facts and questions, urging accountability and transparency regarding the supposed Israeli cell phone presence and its connection to Charlie Kirk’s assassination. They close by reiterating their dislike of secrets, especially when they pertain to the public figure’s death.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Here's some explosive news for you that I can now, beyond a shadow of a doubt, confirm. Putting my name on this. Not only can I confirm this, but I can publicly challenge the very Zionist occupied Trump administration who is aware of this deny it, to come out and say, no? That's not true. Okay? And if Kash Patel is done crying about the mean tweets on the Internet regarding his sensational singing girlfriend, he can also certainly make the time of day to deny what I am saying if it is untrue. Right? Because this is pretty relevant. Now I should say that some people had actually reported this earlier. Like Mel, I've been telling you to follow her village crazy lady over on X. She was actually very early with this reporting, and I had heard rumors and rumblings, but I wanted to make sure that I had verifiable proof, enough proof that I would go out on a limb as I'm doing right now and asserting that it is authentic and it is real. Ladies and gentlemen, there were, for whatever reason, 12 Israeli cell phones on the ground at Utah Valley University the day that Charlie Kirk was assassinated. This has completely spooked the people that are very high up in government. Now to be clear, I don't mean that there were 12 VPNs that were switched and routed through Israel on that day. I mean that there were 12 personal cell phone accounts that were opened in Israel. Okay? Like, you go into Verizon in Tennessee or in Connecticut and you open your phone. I am saying that they opened their phones in Israel, those accounts in Israel, and they were on the ground on September 10 at Utah Valley University when Charlie was shot. Now the NSA knows this. Kash Patel knows this. People in the current administration know that know this, and they are desperate for some reason to stop that information from being released to the public. Why? Because they're the most transparent administration ever. Is that why? Is this like Jeffrey Epstein transparency that we're getting? Because that's what it feels like. It always seems that on the topic of this one nation that's only the size of New Jersey and has done nothing wrong ever and was truly the greatest friend to Charlie right up until the very end, never put any pressure on him, suddenly, everybody abandoned their values. True friends of Charlie Kirk. Right? Mhmm. Standing on that stage, giving him a speech, hiding this. Now what would be the reason that they wanted to keep that information under wraps? And why does it have people at the very top spooked? If there's nothing to hide, then there's nothing to hide. Okay? If there's nothing to hide, then there's nothing to hide. Now let's play devil's advocate. And to be clear, we are now advocating for the devil when we do this. Maybe the cell phones belonged to exchange students. It's possible. Maybe 12 Israelis were touring UVU on that day because, I don't know, Utah Valley University is a place where they maybe wanted to attend in the future. Maybe 12 American students had Israeli based cell phones because they had just come back from a summer abroad program, and they wanted to keep their Israeli cell phones running when they got back home to Utah. I don't know, but I'd like to know. In fact, we need to know the answer to this question. Why are they hiding this information, and why and who did those 12 Israeli cell phones belong to? Okay? I don't like secrets. I don't like secrets, especially when they pertain to the public execution of my friend Charlie Kirk.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 6, 2025 at 10:45 AM

Saved - December 11, 2025 at 7:34 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I reveal that a former TPUSA rep, Joshua Petersen, says he’s NDA-bound but spilling for Charlie: leaders rented stripper vans to haul underage recruits to bars, got them drunk, then pulled them aside for a “chat” that turned into a Mossad recruitment pitch. He says TPUSA brass did nothing. He also alleges tax fraud, money laundering, and leadership threatening him for speaking out. He warns donors, vows an exclusive interview, and calls TPUSA a crumbling empire.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨BOMBSHELL: Ex-TPUSA Employee EXPOSES Underage Boozing, Stripper Vans, & Straight-Up MOSSAD Recruitment – And They’re THREATENING Him To Shut Up! 😡 Y’all thought the slush fund bombshell was bad? Buckle up – former TPUSA rep Joshua Petersen just ripped the lid off their so-called “values” in a gut-wrenching confession that’ll make your blood boil. Under NDA but spilling for Charlie, he reveals: During training, “leaders” rented STRIPPER VANS (yep, with POLES) to haul underage recruits like him to Arizona bars, got them HAMMERED knowing they were minors, then pulled him aside for a cigarette “chat” that turned into a full-on MOSAD pitch. “What if we told you we’re part of Israeli forces?” they said, trying to recruit him on the spot. He flagged it to TPUSA brass – crickets. No action, just protection for the infiltrators. Red flag? This was a NUCLEAR WARNING SIREN. And it doesn’t stop there. In my exclusive sit-down with Josh (dropping SOON), he unloads on the TAX FRAUD (misclassifying employees as contractors to dodge Uncle Sam), financial shenanigans that scream money laundering, and now – LEADERSHIP THREATENING HIM FOR SPEAKING OUT. This isn’t a youth org; it’s a grooming pipeline for foreign agendas wrapped in crosses and flags. Donors, your millions are funding WHAT exactly? Pull out NOW before it’s too late. If TPUSA’s “Christian conservative” vibe includes corrupting kids and shielding spies… what the hell are they hiding next? Drop “EXPOSED” below, RT to wake up every donor you know, and tag @RealCandaceO. Stay locked for the full interview; TPUSA’s empire is crumbling FAST. 👀🔥

Video Transcript AI Summary

Joshua Peterson, a former representative for Turning Point USA, recounts his experience during training with the organization. He describes the first nights as long and strenuous, followed by a planned group time that turned out differently than expected. Instead of bonding with the current cohort, he and others were paired with former representatives from previous years who would guide them around the city. He notes an unusual setup: two “stripper vans” rented to take them into the city. He emphasizes that there were no strippers, but the vans contained stripper poles, which he found odd and inconsistent with the organization’s values. Once they reached bars in Arizona, the former reps allegedly started getting the trainees drunk. During the night, the former reps allegedly singled out individuals to smoke with them. When it was his turn to talk to them, Peterson says they asked about his views on Israel, and he expressed that he thought Israel was a good country at the time. They pressed him further about Mossad and Israeli forces, and he replied that they were “alright.” They then claimed, “we’re part of, like, Israeli groups and forces,” and asserted, “we’ve been working for Turning Point for the past four or five years now.” Peterson states he did not know at the time whether the company knew about this or if they were infiltrating Turning Point USA, but he believed there were more such individuals—“Israeli agents within Turning Point USA” and more of them in the organization. He and a couple of other representatives discussed the issue with Turning Point’s administration, believing action would be taken. However, he says nothing was done in response and there was “absolutely zero retaliation” toward the Israeli-affiliated representatives, which he describes as a significant red flag for many of them. In closing, Peterson highlights that these events raised serious concerns about possible infiltration by Israeli agents within Turning Point USA and the lack of disciplinary response from the organization’s leadership.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: My name is Joshua Peterson. I'm a former representative for Turning Point USA, and I have a story to tell about when I was out training at Turning Point. So the first couple nights went, as you would expect, it's pretty long and strenuous work. We were being trained very vigorously. And after the first few days, we were told that we were gonna have some group time. And the first thing that I thought about that was that's gonna be awesome. We get a group bond and stuff like that, and I get to hang out with my leader. And I however, this was not the case. We were gonna be going out with our former representatives that had shown up from previous years and had been at training in previous years, and they were gonna be the ones that were gonna show us around the city. So I get paired up with these two specific people who I cannot name currently, but they take us out. And the first thing that I found very odd about, you know, this Christian conservative company is they rented two stripper vans to take us out to the city. No strippers, but it was like there were stripper poles inside the vans. Very odd, very, unlike, you know, their values, but okay. And then once we got down to the bars in Arizona, they started getting us drunk. The former reps were and very drunk at that. And then they started singling out people and they would pull them out one by one to go side and smoke like a cigarette. Now when it was finally my turn to go and talk to them, they approached me and they asked me, hey, what are your views on Israel? And I just told them, you know, I think Israel's a good country at the time. I thought so at least. And they told me, okay. Well, what do you think about, like, you know, Mossad and, like, Israeli forces? And I was like, they're alright. Like, yeah. And they were like, what if we told you we're part of, like, Israeli groups and forces? And I was like, oh, that's interesting. And I'm like, and you work for Turning Point. Right? And they were like, yeah, we do. We've been working for Turning Point for the past four or five years now. Now at the time, I did not know if the company knew of this. I did not know if they were infiltrating the company by any means, but they were Israeli agents within Turning Point USA, and I knew that there were more as well. And there was many more of them in Turning Point. And it was a very concerning thing for me and a couple of the representatives that we noticed. And we did end up bringing it up to our administration at Turning Point that this was going on, and they said they would take care of it. And sure enough, nothing was done about it. There was absolutely zero retaliation towards those, representatives that were part of Israel, and there was nothing. And that was very disappointing to see and honestly a huge red flag for a lot of us.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 BOMBSHELL: According To Ex-TPUSA EMPLOYEE Charlie Kirk Discovered SECRET $5M Stock Market Slush Fund With ZERO Employees – Then Dropped DEAD😱 Former staffer Joshua Peterson just went on the record: “There was an inner circle at Turning Point USA constantly working against Charlie… There was a Jewish influence in Turning Point that he was not very fond of, that he wanted to get rid of. He tried creating a ‘dox’ department to expose it… and then he gets assassinated.” But it gets darker. Charlie discovered an entire secret branch of TPUSA he had ZERO knowledge of: A “stock market investment” division that has funneled MILLIONS of dollars over the last 4 years. Latest tax filings (filed suspiciously late) show: $5+ million poured into “stock market funds for employees” Staff count for this branch: literally ZERO Charlie Kirk had no idea this branch even existed Peterson: “That sounds like money laundering to me… a pyramid scheme going on behind the scenes that Charlie did not know about. I think he was planning to expose it. And that’s ultimately what got him killed.” Receipts in his pinned comment/video showing his TPUSA badge, paystubs, and internal access. The same organization that turned into a Zionist fortress overnight after Charlie dropped dead on stage at 33… had a hidden multi-million-dollar slush fund the founder never knew about. Connect the dots yourself. Drop a 🪦 if you think Charlie was about to blow the lid off something massive. Follow: @sarah_luna_1111 She is awesome.. RT and Tag @RealCandaceO

Video Transcript AI Summary

Joshua Peterson states that there was an inner circle at Turning Point USA that was constantly working against Charlie Kirk and his interests, including a Jewish influence within Turning Point that Kirk was not fond of and wanted to get rid of. He asserts that Kirk tried creating a Doge department, and that Kirk was assassinated. Peterson further claims that Kirk was unaware of an entire branch within Turning Point dedicated to the stock market. He says this stock market branch has been receiving millions of dollars over the past four years, as evidenced by the latest tax returns, which were filed late. He notes that this branch has had no knowledge or involvement from Kirk, yet still directed funds into stock market activities. He highlights a discrepancy in the staff of that branch, stating that the staff listing shows zero employees, yet the branch has been pouring $5,000,000 into funds for employees. Peterson questions how this could make sense and characterizes the situation as money laundering, suggesting a pyramid scheme behind the scenes at Turning Point that Kirk did not know about initially. He contends that Kirk was planning to expose this hidden branch, and that this exposure is what ultimately led to Kirk's death. Peterson also addresses a question from others about his own employment, confirming, “Yes, I did” work for Turning Point USA, and he intends to tag photos in the next clip to corroborate his employment.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: My name is Joshua Peterson. I worked for Turning Point USA and Turning Point USA Fate, and I knew Charlie Kirk personally. I wanna say on the record that there was a inner circle at Turning Point USA that was constantly working against Charlie and his interests and what he wanted to do, as well as there was a Jewish influence in Turning Point that he was not very fond of that he wanted to get rid of. He tried doing this. He tried creating a Doge department, and he gets assassinated. Another thing that makes me believe the center circle was constantly working against Charlie was because of the fact that he had a whole entire branch of turning point that he had no idea about, and that was the stock market branch. Now the thing about this branch is it's been getting millions of dollars poured into it over the past four years now, and that's been seen through their latest tax returns, which were also filed late, which was weird, but that's another topic for another time. This stock market group that Turning Point has has been throwing millions of dollars into the stock market for the past four years now, and Charlie Kirk had no knowledge of that whatsoever. Now if you also look into it a little bit deeper, if you look at the staff on that branch specifically, it says zero. It says there's nobody employed in that branch yet they're pouring $5,000,000 into funds for employees. Make it make sense. That sounds like money laundering to me. It sounds like there's some pyramid scheme going on behind the scenes at Turning Point that Charlie did not know about originally, and I think that he was planning to expose that, and that's in the ultimately what got him killed. A lot of people are asking, did you really work for Turning Point USA? And, yes, I did. I'll tag some photos in the next clip just to show you guys that I did work for them.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - November 3, 2025 at 12:24 PM

Saved - December 11, 2025 at 6:04 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I read that Erika Kirk, in a Fox News interview, says she’s “seen what the case is built on,” implying prosecutors briefed her on evidence in the Tyler Robinson case. She isn’t a witness and was reportedly at her mom’s hospital room, yet she hints at VIP access to prosecution intel. I question FBI handling and whether they’re scripting the narrative. Shoutout to @realbaronpod for spotting this. What do you think—proper or improper?

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨BREAKING: Erika Kirk GETTING BRIEFED By The PROSECUTION In The Tyler Robinson Case?! She Isn't Even A WITNESS In a Fox News interview, Erika Kirk drops a bombshell: "I've seen what the case is built on." Wait—what? She seems to be implying that the prosecution has been briefing her on the Evidence In The Tyler Robinson case. Is the prosecution briefing Charlie Kirk''s WIDOW on evidence details? She's not even a WITNESS. Wasn't there—said she was at her mom's hospital room. That's fine, but why the VIP access to prosecution intel? This reeks of impropriety. FBI's handling of this case needs SCRUTINY. Are they scripting the narrative? Shoutout to @realbaronpod for spotting this as well—teamwork makes the dream work. GO FOLLOW HIM! What do you think—Is this right or improper? Drop your takes below.

Video Transcript AI Summary

Speaker 0 raises a question about the propriety of the FBI’s approach to the case, asking if the prosecution is briefing Erica Kirk on the case against Tyler Robinson and whether she’s considered a witness. He notes she wasn’t at certain events, such as being with her husband, and questions if she’s really being briefed and if that’s right. He adds that the defense wants to ban cameras in the courtroom and asks for thoughts on that. Speaker 1 responds by recounting the presence of cameras: there were cameras all over her husband when he was murdered, cameras all over her friends and family mourning, and cameras all over her, analyzing her every move, smile, and tear. She argues they deserve to have cameras in the courtroom and to be transparent, saying there’s nothing to hide because she’s seen what the case is built on. She asserts that everyone should see what true evil is, noting this could impact a generation and generations to come.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: I wanna raise a question about the propriety of the way the FBI is approaching this case. For example, is the prosecution briefing Erica Kirk on the case against Tyler Robinson? I don't even know that she'd considered a witness. Think about it. She wasn't there. She wasn't at we're told she was at her mom's hospital room. That's fine. But you don't have to be everywhere your husband is. It it wouldn't be unusual for someone to be somewhere else. But she seems to indicate, and I'll play a small clip tonight where she kinda says it herself. She seems to say, yes. They're briefing me on the case. I'm aware of the prosecution's evidence. But are they really doing that? And if so, is it right? The defense wants to ban cameras in the courtroom. How do you feel about that? Speaker 1: There were cameras all over my husband when he was murdered. There have been cameras all over my friends and family mourning. There have been cameras all over me analyzing my every move, analyzing my every smile, my every tear. We deserve to have cameras in there. Why not be transparent? There's nothing to hide. I know there's not because I've seen what the case is built on. Let everyone see what true evil is. This is something that could impact a generation and generations to come.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 10, 2025 at 2:11 AM

Saved - December 10, 2025 at 11:03 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I’m reporting Candace Owens said Arcadi Gaydamak, alias Jonathan Schmidt, a billionaire tied to arms trafficking, has moved to Tennessee near Nashville (Brentwood/Franklin) since June 2025. He allegedly works at Root Brands as a tech officer and is with Ukrainian refugees. Viewers are urged to photograph, note addresses, and file tips with police, ICE, and @RealCandaceO.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨BREAKING: CANDACE OWENS Just Went LIVE Visibly SHAKEN: The French President's ALLEGED HITMAN Has MOVED To Her Town In TENNESSEE🤯 His real name: Arcadi Gaydamak (Russian-Israeli billionaire, French intelligence asset, convicted arms trafficker) His current alias: “Jonathan Schmidt” His new job: “Tech officer” at Root Brands in Nashville (a billionaire doesn’t need a day job) When he moved: June 2025 Where he’s house-hunting: Brentwood/Franklin area Who he’s bringing in: Hand-picked “Ukrainian war refugees” (including a guy named Alex Smirnoff) Candace revealed this on air yesterday after SEVEN separate viewers emailed her the exact same intel within hours of her mentioning Gaydamak’s name. The same man tied to the Macron “kill order” against her is now living minutes from her house… and the FBI, DOJ, and White House have ghosted her for months. Only Tulsi Gabbard’s office has even responded. Tennessee – we need boots on the ground NOW. If you live in Nashville/Franklin/Brentwood and you’ve seen this man: 🔘Works at Root Brands 🔘Goes by Jonathan Schmidt 🔘Heavy Israeli/Russian accent 🔘Surrounded by new “Ukrainian refugees” 🔘Billionaire who suddenly needs a 9-5 Take photos (from a safe distance), note addresses, license plates, anything, and immediately send to: @RealCandaceO or myself AND most importantly contact local police + ICE. This is not a drill. This is the guy allegedly sent to finish the job. Protect Candace. Protect Tennessee. Protect America. Tag every TN patriot you know. Flood ICE and local PD tip lines. We the People still have the power when the feds refuse to act. RT this and Tag @FBIDirectorKash @FBIDDBongino @FBI @realDonaldTrump and keep the pressure on them, demand they act on this threat and protect Candace Owens life. If they don't they will have her blood on their hands.

Video Transcript AI Summary

Pierre Falcone had a partner named Arcady Gademach involved in Angola Gate, described as global trafficking at the highest levels of government. Arcady Gatomach didn’t show up for his court hearing and was sentenced in absence for trafficking weapons, etc. He was born in Russia, spent time in Israel, and was described as a French intelligence agent. Following yesterday’s episode, there were emails suggesting Gatimack (referenced as the same person) is living in Nashville and moved here in June, using the name Jonathan Schmidt. Seven people, mostly men, were certain that he is from Israel and is working for a company known as Root Brands under the guise of being a technology officer. They allege he has brought in Ukrainians and is working with them; Ukrainians are said to be running from the war. The claim is he was brought in by a Nashville businessman named Clay Thomas, and one of the Ukrainians mentioned is Alex Smirnoff. The informer stated that Gatimack is in Nashville since June and that he is using the name Jonathan Schmidt. The speaker expresses fear and says they do not know who to contact regarding an assassination attempt and coordination, mentioning Israel and France, and notes receiving more credible information via emails. They contacted Clay Thomas and Root Brands and requested more information about this Russian-Israeli employee using the name Jonathan Schmidt who is bringing in Ukrainians. The plan is to publicize the information to Tennesseans in Franklin and Nashville who are familiar with Root Brands or have seen this man. They request efforts to find a photo or aged photo. The speaker urges contacting authorities, stating they will do so, and notes that Tulsi Gabbard’s office has been involved. They stress the seriousness of the situation and advise Tennesseans to report sightings of the individual, including reports from real estate agents who say he was shopping for a home in the Brentwood area. They request tips at Candace Owens dot com and encourage contacting authorities if any sob stories are heard from Ukrainians fleeing the war. They claim there is a major influx of Ukrainians fleeing to Washington, and warn that wars can allow dangerous people into other countries under refugee guise. They reiterate that there should be no Israeli or French intelligence officers in Nashville, and ask anyone who knows something to email them. They say if you work for the local FBI or apartment authorities, you should have heard from them; otherwise, contact via email. The speaker promises to provide more information in the coming days, describing the situation as very scary and noting that Root Brands purportedly hired the individual as a technology officer and that he is supposed to be a billionaire, which raises questions about why he would be employed. They dispute the name Jonathan Schmidt and suggest the person might be Israeli who should be living in Tel Aviv and may not be legally allowed in the United States. They also appeal to ICE agents or border patrol agents to get involved.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Obviously, yesterday, we spoke about this Pierre in Scottsdale and I had mentioned that he had a partner. Pierre Falcone had a partner named Arcady Gademach. Didn't expect that to be relevant to anything, but they were both involved in Angola Gate, which was global trafficking at the highest levels of government. But this Arcady Gatomach didn't show up for his court hearing. And he just was sentenced in absence for trafficking weapons, etcetera, etcetera. I explained to you that he was born in Russia. And then when Israel became a nation, he was first over there. He was also a factually, and you can see in his article, a French intelligence agent. Okay? Why am I bringing up Gatamac? Well, after yesterday's episode, I had asked if anybody had anything or knew anything about, you know, Turning Point potentially working with this PR person. I was shocked when a flutter of emails came in from people saying that they believed Gatimack was living in Nashville, that he moved here sometime in June. Okay? And when I say a flurry of emails that came in, there were seven people, mostly men, who were certain that that man aged now is working in Nashville using the name Jonathan Schmidt. They are certain at the very least that he is from Israel and that he is working for a company known as Root Brands under the guise of being a technology officer. And that he has brought in and secured jobs for Ukrainians. And again, this has all happened transpired since apparently June. Ukrainians who he alleges are running from the war. They say he was brought in by a businessman in town named Clay Thomas and that one of the Ukrainians that is working with him, his name is Alex Smirnoff. Now, I don't know what to say other than I am positively terrified. I don't know who to contact considering the feds. I've been telling them that there's an assassination attempt and coordination. I have said Israel. I have said France. And now I have dealt with I have these emails, more credible information. And if it's incorrect, I'm happy to correct it. I reached out to Clay Thomas. I have reached out to Root Brands. And I have requested more information about this Russian Israeli employee who is using the name Jonathan Schmidt and bringing in Ukrainians. And so instead what I'm going to do is I'm gonna publicize this information in the hope that if you are a Tennessean and you live in Franklin, and you live in Nashville, and you are familiar with Root brands, and you have seen this man and Eskayo, I don't know if we have an aged photo of him, but we should try to find one. Please, first off, you should probably contact the authorities. I certainly will be doing that. I think we had my husband has already done that. Told him that this morning. I have definitively run that to the only office that has responded and I think taken my threat. I was wanted to respond that I should say. Should that I've been saying about the French intelligence agencies working with Israel. And that is Tulsi Gabbard's office. I am doing everything that I can, but I am telling you that this is very scary. And if you are in Tennessee, anything, if you know of this Jonathan Schmidt and you've seen him around town, if you're a real estate agent, they said he was shopping for a home in the Brentwood area. If you have seen this individual anywhere in Nashville for the love of God, please send us an email. More tips at Candace Owens dot com. And I am encouraging you to contact your authorities if you are hearing any sob stories from anyone about how they're coming in from Ukraine and that they're fleeing the war. Okay? I think you should contact the authorities immediately. We don't need to have a presence of Ukrainians that are quote unquote fleeing the war in Tennessee. And I trust the Tennesseans to get this done and to pay attention. And I wanna say this by the way everywhere in America. I've heard there's a major influx of Ukrainians, fleeing that are building up in Washington. That is something to be worried about you guys. That is something to be very concerned about. Because it is during wars where the most dangerous people are allowed into other countries under the guise of being refugees. That is how they take over other countries. And you need to keep your eyes and your ears peeled for how these Ukrainian refugees are organizing. I don't think there's a reason for any Israeli intelligence and French intelligence officers to be here in Nashville. So again, if you know something, please email us more tips at canisowens dot com. If you work for the local FBI apartment, you should have been hearing from us. But if you would like to directly contact us, please email us. Will be looking out. And like I said, Root Brands apparently is who is hiring, who has hired this individual under the guise of working under a technology officer. He's supposed to be a billionaire. So why would he be working at all? If this is the correct individual, I'm not buying the name Jonathan Schmidt. I will say that or an Israeli who should be living in Tel Aviv. And I do not believe he's legally allowed to be in this country. So at the very least perhaps also if you're watching this and you are an ICE agent or a border patrol agent, please get involved. I will have more for you hopefully in the coming days, but this is very scary.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 10, 2025 at 1:59 AM

Saved - December 10, 2025 at 7:27 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

I recount a claim that a 35-year military whistleblower, Harry Myers, wandered into a final planning meeting for Charlie Kirk’s assassination at Fort Huachuca. He reports 12+ lieutenant colonels, Brian Harpole with a gray-haired man, and Captain Neff grilling him for hours. He was detained then released; Kirk was killed soon after. Candace allegedly verified incident report 8611-2025-MPC-446 and calls for records, investigations, and sworn testimony.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 BOMBSHELL: Candace Owens Just EXPOSED the US MILITARY MEETING Where They PLANNED Charlie Kirk’s ASSASSINATION – You Won’t Believe Who Was There! (Harpole & Neff)😱 (FULL CLIP) A 35-year military whistleblower (Harry Myers) who’s been running for his life since exposing cartel–U.S. command tunnels in 1990, accidentally walked straight into what he believes was the FINAL PLANNING MEETING for Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Date: September 9th, 2025 Location: Joint Task Force Southern Border HQ, Fort Huachuca, Arizona He saw: A room full of 12+ lieutenant colonels (you don’t see that outside the Pentagon) Brian Harpole (TPUSA security) walking out with a gray-haired man in glasses who was clearly running the show A commander named CAPTAIN NEFF (yes, same last name as Blake Neff) who interrogated him for 7 HOURS trying to label him a “bomb threat” and a spy They detained him, threatened charges, and only let him go after verifying he wasn’t part of some counter-op. The second he lands home? News breaks that Charlie Kirk has been assassinated. This man has the incident report number, hotel receipts, call logs, timestamps – everything. Candace verified what she could and says it’s 100% legit. This isn’t “conspiracy theory.” This is a decorated veteran who stumbled into the room where they allegedly finalized the hit on Charlie Kirk… and lived to tell it. @realDonaldTrump and @SecWar, You now have a direct eyewitness who placed TPUSA leadership inside a classified military facility the day before Charlie was killed. We demand: 🟥The Gov't Immediate release their records of that incident report 8611-2025-MPC-446 🟥Full investigation into Brian Harpole & Captain Neff’s presence at that meeting 🟥@BlakeSNeff Come clean and tell us if he has any family members in the military that were at that base on tha date. 🟥Brian Harpole publicly respond as to his whereabouts on that day. 🟥Public testimony from this whistleblower under oath No more “Tyler Robinson did it alone” fairy tales. The American people deserve the truth. Flood their mentions. Tag every MAGA influencer you know. This cannot be buried. Play the full Candace breakdown below – your jaw will hit the floor. RT and Tag @RealCandaceO, Put A 🇺🇸 In the comments If you're sick of being lied to by our own corrupt government. FOLLOW @RealCandaceO and you must go watch her FULL episode from tonight about this. The information she released tonight is EXPLOSIVE!!!! I'll drop the link to her full podcast in the comments below.

Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker recounts a sequence starting from a Catholic Mass for the Immaculate Conception, describing how a purposeful prayer led him to receive a piece of evidence he believes will help complete the story of a controversial assassination. An email arrives in his tips box from a young woman urging him to contact her friend, whom he calls Harry, who then shares a story the speaker says he has since fact-checked in parts and that is "legit" in its core elements. The speaker asserts Harry is honest about where he was and what he did, while descriptions of people come from Harry’s memory. Harry Myers, 35 years earlier, was a 20-year-old at the bottom of the military ladder attached to a brand-new command, Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6), created along the U.S.–Mexico border under President George H. W. Bush and promoted as a war on drugs. The context includes the Iran-Contra era scandals (1981–1986) and the presidency of Reagan, with George H. W. Bush as VP and later as president who emphasized drug enforcement at the border. Harry describes himself as a lowly “military sensor guy” assigned to Operation Catacomb, which covered half of Arizona and Mexico. He claims that within six days he planted sensors, translated data, and “skipped the chain of command” to provide proof of the first discovered Sinaloa Cartel underground rail tunnel, enabling a raid by a border patrol agent who could obtain a warrant without tipping off compromised commanders. Harry asserts that US and Mexican authorities discovered a tunnel 30 feet underground with equipment like an air compressor, a sump pump, a trolley, and a hydraulic jack; the tunnel connected a house in Agua Prieta to the U.S. side. He alleges that upper-level commanders were pictured with El Chapo and Felipe in the Mexican house, suggesting corruption. He says his information led to the tunnel bust, but afterward his superiors took credit, and he received only a small army medal. He claims that, after the bust, his information was fed to the cartels, and he and a Border Patrol agent were targeted. He alleges his ID was compromised, and he was placed in witness protection, under an NDA, but the protection was never followed up—“the ball got dropped.” Fast forward to May 2025, Harry, now using a new name, leaves his home in Washington to confront his past at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. He stays at a Candlewood Suites on the base on September 8. On September 9, he travels off-base for coffee in Sierra Vista and encounters soldiers from his old unit; they tell him the Joint Task Force Six has continued as JTF Southern Border. He enters the new JTF headquarters around 7:37 a.m. and notices many high-ranking officers (lieutenant colonels). Three men exit a meeting; one is identified by the speaker as Brian Harpole. The speaker claims the other two in the room accuse him of spying and conduct a seven-hour interrogation, attempting to gaslight him into admitting national-security wrongdoing. He recounts being accused of threats and being told to consider a bomb-threat scenario, then being escorted off post after base command involvement. Harry provides an incident report number (8612025-Dash-MPC446) and says Captain Neff led the interrogation; he suspects Neff may have military ties to another media figure’s connection. Afterward, Harry returns home via flight, stopping in Salt Lake City where Charlie Kirk’s name comes up, as the speaker was coincidentally hearing about Kirk during the trip. Harry insists he did the right thing by uncovering possible government involvement with cartels and claims extensive documentation—military records, police records, NDAs, judges—that support his testimony. The presenter links Harry’s story to a broader discussion of global trafficking and cartel-government collusion at high levels, while noting that Harry is now speaking publicly after 35 years of silence and believes there are more people who know something that could be FOIA-requested. The speaker suggests a personal, spiritual sense of movement and fate surrounding these revelations and expresses a desire for further investigation and potential meetings with others in the field.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: I am just going to tell you guys exactly how everything came about, everything that I'm about to deliver to you. Yesterday was a holy day of obligation in the Catholic church. It was the feast of the Immaculate Conception. A day of obligation means that a day in a day in which you are required to attend mass outside of, obviously, typically Sundays. And so as soon as we concluded this podcast, grabbed my jacket, and I ran out the door. Okay? And as I was sitting through mass deciding, I don't I guess, what was on my mind to pray about for whatever reason, got on my knees, and I was not expecting this to come out, but I just focused my prayer on wanting something to be delivered to me, a piece of evidence that would help us put together the full picture of this assassination. Obviously, we all know that what we are being told is not true. Well, we all know that nothing that we have been presented with makes any practical sense. But there are sort of smoking guns in this that are missing. Right? It's one thing to point out to all the lies, but we we need to also have solid concrete proof of something that took place that was out of the ordinary in the days leading up maybe, I don't know, a planning session. Well, I got back home after this very intentional prayer and did my routine, had a very late dinner, went up and said goodnight to the kids, got myself ready for bed, sat in bed, I thought, you know what, I'm just gonna open the tips box. And I kid you not when I say that it was the very first email, that I saw, the very first email that I opened up, and it really didn't have any details. It was a young woman, and she said, you really should call my friend. It is absolutely urgent, and he has information that you need to hear. And don't tell me why. I don't know what came over me, but maybe it was this intentional prayer. I said, I'm just gonna call them right now. Five minutes, not even five minutes after this email hit my inbox, I was calling this person and I had no idea what it was going to lead to, whether it was going to be a totally insane person or whether or not it was going to be a very swiftly answered prayer. The person that I spoke with, his name is or was Harry, And he told me a story which I have since fact checked various elements, the elements that I could fact checked. And legit. This is a legit story that I'm about to share with you. And I want to say before I relay it that the descriptions of the people are based off of his own memory, but the facts pertaining to where he was, whether he was where he says he was, for the reasons that he says that he was there, he is being honest. Okay? I can tell you that he is being 100% honest, and you are free to look further into this. I am certain he is going to probably be doing a lot of interviews in the near future. I can also factually state that there was an incident report, so this was recorded. And what transpired on September 8 that caught him by surprise was something that he thought was a part of a broader military conspiracy against him. He could not fully comprehend why what was happening was happening. Okay? So let's start actually thirty five years ago because you need to know who this man is. In 1990, this young man named Harry Myers discovered something that would shape the next three decades of his life. Okay? He was at the bottom of the military chain. He was just 20 years old, and he was put on what was actually a brand new command, the first ever joint task force six. And this new command was being created down at the border by president George h w Bush, and it was presented to the American public as, look, a war on drugs with the help of Colin Powell. And it should be noted that this took place just to kinda get you back into what was going on, at at at the beginning of the nineteen nineties. This took place just after the Iran Contra affair. Right? The Iran Contra affair was from, I think, 1981 to 1986, happened under Reagan. And for those of you who are not read into massive CIA scandals, this was the scandal when the American public, got to learn that our CIA was actually trafficking drugs and weapons throughout South America. A scandal which if you guys have followed our Epstein series, we now know that he was also involved in the Iran Contra scandal. It essentially shook the foundation of Reagan's White House. And during that time, during Reagan's tenure, George H. W. Bush was the vice president, okay, throughout the scandal. So when George h w Bush then decided that he was going to run as a president of The United States, and he did run and he ran in 1988, just a couple of years following that affair, he had to really hit hard on drugs, drugs at the border, and declare that this White House was was going to do all that it could to stop these drugs from flooding into America. Take a listen to him saying what they were going to be cracking down on. Speaker 1: This, this is crack cocaine seized a few days ago by drug enforcement agents in a park just across the street from the White House. It could easily have been heroin or PCP. It's as innocent looking as candy, but it's turning our cities into battle zones, and it's murdering our children. Let there be no mistake. This stuff is poison. Speaker 0: So you hear the directive from the then president, HW. Now our our protagonist in the story is Harry. Right? He's 20 years old, and he's at the bottom of the military totem pole, and he gets attached to this new command, this new southern command. Previously, there had never been that joint task force, and specifically, he was a part of operation that came to be known as Operation Catacomb. He describes himself, and I'm going to put this in quotations, as a lowly military sensor guy assigned to this joint task operation six, and they were to cover half of Arizona and Mexico. And I'm going to read this next portion of his story directly from him. Okay? And I quote, in just six days, I planted sensors, translated data, and, skipped the chain of command and gave proof of the existence and pinpointed the location of the first ever discovered Sinaloa Cartel underground rail tunnel. By passing, directly through to lower border patrol agents, I skipped command and directly, a border patrol agent was able to skip his command and directly sought a warrant to raid the tunnel, which avoided tipping off any compromised commanders, that were working with the cartel. Thus, why it resulted in such a big bust. Most importantly, it did not give time to remove photos that were on the walls on the Mexican side. Where our joint task commander, who was a high ranking border patrol, was actually in the photos in that house posing with El Chapo and Felipe, his architect. And there were other US marine officers and Mexican law enforcement officers and military that were in those photos. Okay? End quote. So just to be clear, he discovers this tunnel, somehow skips the chain of command. Now they find this massive tunnel and oh, wait. Why are military commanders and high up people in the military in pictures with El Chapo? What's going on here? I'm going to pause here to let you see an old news clip regarding this explosive discovery that Harry made. Speaker 2: The tunnel was called one of the most sophisticated drug smuggling schemes authorities have ever seen. Using jackhammers and torches, federal agents broke into the concrete reinforced tunnel at a warehouse in Douglas, Arizona. 30 feet underground, agents walked through a 100 yards through the five foot high tunnel. It took them under the Mexican border to a house in Agua Prieta. There, they found an air compressor, a sump pump, a small trolley car, and a hydraulic jack. It was used to lift up the floor inside the living room of the house where the smugglers would start their illegal trip to The US. Authorities said when the tunnel wasn't being used for drug running, the smugglers would flood it with water. Speaker 3: Let's say we came over here with some technology trying to detect this, it would look like an underground stream if it was flooded. Speaker 2: Federal agents said the tunnel cost at least a million dollars to build and had probably been in operation for six months to a year. Last November, customs agents received a tip that a sophisticated tunnel was being used to funnel cocaine into The United States. Speaker 4: This type of tunnel is, is is not a an amateur operation. It's a highly sophisticated, engineering feat that took place. Speaker 2: Mexican authorities were also involved in the investigation and the raid. Earlier this month, police seized 2,000 pounds of cocaine, which they said came into The US through the tunnel. The drugs were headed for Southern California. Speaker 0: And what stops out of that news clip is there were pictures of United States military men in that house. What happens next is predictable given what we now know. Harry's superiors take the credit for the bust, and he's going to continue what happens. I'm gonna, again, quote him verbatim. Quote, on the surface, I was given a small reward, an army medal. I have the write ups for those awards mentioning me and my critical role in this mission success. That said, US border patrol members who recognized me as being the agent responsible for the bust did not like seeing that I wasn't being appreciated more and resented my higher ups for taking the credit for discovery. Somehow, in the immediate days after the bust, prior to The United States side getting the photos from the Mexican authorities, my information was given to the cartels. In continuing the mission, me and one border patrol agent were sent to Naco, Arizona, where I was approached by a cartel member confirming my identification by rattling off my mother's name, address, my high school, my friends, everything listed in my clearance packet, which was supposed to be locked in custody in the custody of the joint task force six commander whose picture was with El Chapo, and about to be discovered. We avoided being taken hostage, or shot, sneaking away, and driving out of that little town. I was taken back to Fort Huachuca with The US border patrol agent. I was with believing since I was just a young 20 year old that I must have somehow compromised my own ID. The next day, I had a debrief with the army criminal investigation division and a prosecutor from Tucson, Arizona informing me of how my ID became compromised. I was told that I was then going to be put in witness protection. My orders restricted me from any further work in counter narcotics from being stationed on or south of the border, and it prevented me from working with border patrol. It was a Band Aid while they prepared and got approval for me to be put into witness protection. Also, to protect me, the mission, and the prosecutions, I was also put under an NDA gag order, which was dated out. Right? Look. Says 1990 to May 2025 to prevent me from mentioning this entire ordeal. The witness protection entrance never happened. The ball got dropped. I never got contacted for it. From what we uncovered, a deal was made with the compromised US border patrol agent commander. Okay. So let's pause and just recap there very quickly, and I'm gonna tell you what this has to do with Charlie Kirk. Okay? So I guess in a sentence, a young military man did his job excellently. He accidentally stumbled upon or actually, yeah, accidentally stumbled upon the fact that our government was implicated not in fighting the cartels but working with the cartels. And suddenly, he realizes after some time that the government then beats him or somebody spitefully, perhaps his commander, fed him to the cartels, and now he's on the run for his life. What happens over the course of the next, twenty thirty five years is he's hacked. He says that he goes through abusive litigation. He is harassed. He says there are narco attorneys that attack his credits. There are he has police records, by the way, for all of this. He has presented evidence for this. But throughout a certain point in time, these police records were virtually disappeared. He had been reporting that hitmen were coming after him. He had names. This is a thirty five years long ordeal. He now has all of his paperwork. Thanks to, some county clerks who did the right thing and were able to dig up these records. But you name it, this man has lived it throughout the the last thirty five years. Okay? Fast forward to May 2025, May, and Harry Myers, who now has a new name, by the way, which I'm not saying, but he is finally released from this thirty five year military grade NDA. So what does this now 56 year old decide to do? He decides that he's going to confront his past. He wants answers. Okay? He wants to know why he was never protected. He wants to know if the FBI had been informed, and if so, which they were supposed to be, why they didn't do their job. Why didn't they protect Harry? He was working for the military, and he did his job. He makes up his mind that he's gonna deal with this in person. He is going to travel from his home in Washington back down to the very base where this all began, right, to Fort Huachuca, pardon me, Huachuca, in Arizona. He's gonna revisit the past. He's gonna get these answers. He books himself to stay in a hotel on the base, a military hotel, known as Candlewood Suites. And this is on the evening of September 8. I want you to remember that. Okay? He has been so thorough. He has sent me time stamps, bookings, reservations, went through his call logs. I was like, I want you to pinpoint when everything happens. So he gets to the Candlewood Suites at approximately on September 8, 05:37PM. Checks into the hotel, and you can imagine he's a person that pays a lot of attention to his surroundings. Right? When the cartels are after you and your family and you are compelled to change your name, you pay attention to your surroundings to see if anybody looks shady. What he notices is somebody who is special forces in the lobby. He said, do you know you just know when you're dealing with a special forces guy? And he is in the lobby and a person, a young woman comes down thereafter. That young woman who at the time he did not recognize is with him. They kind of fluff around in the lobby while he's checking in. He's left home with his wife. And thereafter, the two of them get into a green pickup truck, and they drive off. Okay. The next morning, now we're September 9, he wakes up at around 05:30AM in the morning because he wants to see the sunrise. He says that he then fails at finding the army criminal investigations department. So he drives off base just a a little ways off base to get some coffee in Sierra Vista. While getting that coffee, he runs into some soldiers. Again, this is just all god at this point, who happened to be wearing tenth mountain division patches. And he's like, that's my old unit. What's going on here? Like, that he he thinks his unit's gone. Nothing's going on with this unit for a long time. It it's it's been torn apart or I don't I don't know what the military expression is for that. He strikes up a conversation with these young guys, and they tell him, oh, no. No. No. The the old joint task force six is now being continued. And it's known as JTF, Joint Task Force Southern Border. Now for those of you who are like me who don't know like literally what it sounds like Joint Task Force, meaning like you can get the army, navy, everybody kind of working together on something. And they're like, yeah, it's now JTF southern border. And they give him directions of how he can actually get to the new command center. They tell them that they're actually currently borrowing a building down there. And he tells me that there would have been no other way he would have discovered where it was. So his intention was to go to army CID. Now he's like, wow. I can go directly to the actual JTF six, which is now being continued, and get some answers. What luck. It is now around 07:37AM when he enters the new or temporary JTF headquarters, And he sees two guys and he's pretty impressed. He's like, woah, these are again military term E4, E5s. He told me that means that they're lieutenant colonels. And they are the ones that are checking him in. He happens to walk in at the exact time that they are concluding a meeting. And he is kind of even more impressed because he sees about 12 lieutenant colonels. He tells me, you do not see that many people, that many e fours, e fives, e sixes. Please military guys forgive me for me not knowing what the proper vernacular. But he just goes, what's going on? He's like, don't see this unless you're at the Pentagon or you're at the White House. You just don't see this many high up the food chain tenant colonels. He's going, man, this is like, this is a pretty important meeting. And then he sees three men walk out, one of which is the person he identifies as the person that's the center of the action. He said, you could just tell this is the most important person. And he has gray hair, he's got glasses. I believe he said that he's about five ten. And at this point, he sees that the person that is with him, and he is he said certain that the person that is with him is Brian Harpole. Yeah. Okay. Oh, it's about to get even more interesting. So and again, I'm going to say allegedly because I wasn't there. But I have spoken to this guy and I very much trust what he is saying. I think he is very credible. Okay? So he sees Brian Harpaugh come out, this older guy, and the he has what then happens is first the guys that are checking him in are friendly. He explains to them, yeah. You know, this is what happened to me. I just wanna speak to somebody. They're like, yeah. Let me help you. Then all of a sudden after Brian, who he believes to be Brian Hartpull, who he's not obviously recognized at that time, he would not have known that was Brian Hartpull, but he remembers him obviously because then the biggest assassin political assassinations in JFK happens. Suddenly, somebody hits the panic button. And two captains come out and they escort him out of the building and they begin what becomes a seven hour interrogation. Okay? They think he's a spy. How did you did you rumble this meeting? How did you know this meeting was taking place? He gets he's being asked a bunch of questions. They're putting pressure on him. They're gaslighting him. I actually wanna if you give me a second, wanna read exactly what he messaged me about what took place. Because it's it's incredible. It's actually just incredible with how he describes what their strategy here of attempting to gaslight him into believing that he was a spy or that he was working for somebody. And he's like, no, I'm just here over an incident that happened thirty five years ago. I'm trying to get answers regarding it, and they're putting pressure on him. I'm going to write this verbatim. He says he's being interrogated. He is quote being accused of being a bomb threat because I was special forces the military, EOD in the military. Then attempted to try to gaslight me to see if they could angle an accusation of me being a threat to others or myself. When all of that fell flat, they then conferenced with base commander after I assumed they verified that I was not there to spy on that particular meeting, they decided it was okay to send me off post. That's when I drove a Tucson, I got a room. The next morning, I turned in my rental car, I got on a plane back home, and I had to stop in Salt Lake. Upon landing and turning on the phone, my wife is telling me about Charlie Kirk. And again, this was just a coincidence. I happened to be in the airport at the time that you are talking about all of those strange flights that were taking place there. I did not notice anything helpful other than the fact that the airport was not very crowded. So after seven hours, he explains to me that they were going to the debated holding him for forty eight hours for this perceived perhaps maybe bomb threat spy thing that's happening. And he's thinking, can you imagine this, they're paranoid, but he's paranoid and thinking, my gosh, this is more like Sinaloa cartel stuff. And I'm being treated like this because I've wanted to speak out about this story for thirty five years. Both of them are wrong. Okay, both of them are wrong. This really is just a coincidence. And adding to this coincidence is the fact and that he got the commander's name that obviously that questioned him for this long. He says this was the guy that wasn't in charge, the commander. And he said he was approximately 36 years old. He had brown hair, the one I'm talking about that was leading the charge on asking him all the questions and interrogating him. And that his name was Captain Neff. I'm going. Now I have the same question that you have because I don't I've looked and it does seem that and I never even questioned this whether or not it's potential that Blake Neff has military connections as well. I guess that kind of, like, I just thought this is a producer of Charlie Kirk show, but it is interesting that somebody and this would be a brother, cousin. I don't know. This is the person that interrogated him. And eventually, he says was a person that had a heart and realized that he was not a part of any spy network and eventually escorted him off of the base and onto his way. That's a lot of coincidence for me. Now he says to me communicated this to me very clearly. He said, Candace, I I know how these meetings work. These are the meetings that are had ahead of an operation. Like when an operation is being confirmed, you have these final meetings, and they involve all the higher ups. And you are trying to do this in a very isolated location where, you know, people are not gonna accidentally happen upon you because they've got something to say about what happened thirty five years ago. And that is what he happened upon. And I don't know what to make of his information other than he feels that he then recognized these people. He feels certain that he recognized these people in the days following Charlie's Kirk assassination. When a bunch of people are doing Fox News and obviously then we've got a massive event at a stadium and everybody is in front of the camera eulogizing him, he feels confident that he recognizes these people and that needs to be shared. He's willing to tell a story. Like I said, I have verified. He has sent me so many documents, everything from his like high school graduation certificate to his military documents, to the police records, to everything that he's speaking about that happened back then, NDAs, judges, things that he's been in court with fighting just to get out his story of what happened thirty five years ago when he did the right thing when he stumbled upon. And boy does he have some luck. Boy does he have some luck that he goes from one government conspiracy to what he now believes he stumbled upon, which would be another government conspiracy. Okay? He said that this commander, Neff by the way was the commander of force protection. Best he could tell he did not get the first name. He did get an incident number, which I should have had prepared for you, but I can find it here in our chat because he sent me that too. He said, There would have been no record for this if they didn't swore me as if there was a bomb threat because now of course there is an actual incident report and he believes that this can be FOIA requested. And that report number, if you will bear with me, I'm going to read that to you all because I think this is going to take really the whole world to investigate. It is 8612025DashMPC446. So that is the report number that was given to him by this Captain Commander NEF. And like I said, he has given me every I I I could have just put up documents upon documents certifying that he was there, certifying that this happened, whether or descriptions and whether or not the people that he thinks he saw, he actually saw at this base, I don't know. What I will say is that something that I could easily have done was to see whether or not I asked him, did you see Dan Flood? No. Well, that checks out because Dan Flood was with Charlie in Korea. And I am wondering about that. Like why would you want to go to Japan a day before you have a college campus event? Right? You have Charlie on the fifth and on the September 6, he is in Korea doing an event. And then on the seventh, he's in Japan. And he is on CNN news, Japan speaking. And so yeah, like on the eighth, if that's when he left, maybe he left on the ninth, you got a twelve hour flight back home. And I have questions and somebody out there knows something. And I don't know what to say other than this feels right. This feels right to me. This feels to me as we were speaking about yesterday about global trafficking and cartels and the government involved in this somehow and implicated in this somehow in ways that we don't quite understand, but that we know involves the highest possible levels of corruption that this feels right. And like I said, he is not hiding. He is done hiding. He has been silenced for thirty five years, running from his life and being gaslit about that. And the same way that I am being gaslit about that. And I have a very terrifying update for you regarding people that have been trying to assassinate me. And speaking to him was I guess like emotionally qualifying because exactly what he's been going through, I've been going through. He didn't have the platform to be able to get his name out. And I said to him like, do you wanna come out? And he said, yeah, I've been silent for thirty five years. He said, I watch your stuff and I can't believe that you got this email. And I said to him, the chances of me seeing this were basically slim to none. And it was the first email that was in my box and I just called you. And I feel God moving in that. And despite the I mean, the utterly demonic and satanic action and the level of collusion that had to take place for 09:10 to happen. I do also know, as I have always known spiritually, that they wouldn't get away with it. And I think Charlie whatever vision he had, when which he knew his life would be short and which he knew that I would not let this go because I somehow feel tied to it. And we're seeing more and more every day that somehow I am tied to this. I think that this is God operating. I really do. I think bless this man. Thank you so much for your service to this country. I expect, I know that he wants to, he said he would love to meet Ian Carroll and I guess he's watching his stuff and I will obviously make that happen and much more in the coming days. I don't expect the feds to reach out. I don't expect them to be interested in this angle or this potential meeting. And I think they probably already knew about. I do hope though that somebody else saw something and somebody will knows the quickest way to FOIA request that stuff. Somebody knows how to get behind this so we can get information. I've given you the dates. I've given you the times. He has given so much more. And I know I just thank God that I saw that email.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 7, 2025 at 1:53 PM

Saved - December 8, 2025 at 10:21 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

A claim sequence ties Charlie Kirk’s death to a rapid call from TPUSA’s new CEO to Pierre Dupont, alleging a “billion-dollar offer” before the killing. Webb links Dupont to Hunter Biden’s “Raymond,” Burisma’s alleged front operations via Egypt, and Egyptian planes used for mass surveillance at MAGA events. The Duponts are described as building the largest private surveillance network, framed as a Mafia-style takeover; calls to scrutinize the Dupont network intensify.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨BREAKING: George Webb just DROPPED an interesting tidbit that ties EVERYTHING together — Charlie Kirk’s ASSASSINATION, Turning Point USA, Hunter Biden’s Burisma, EGYPTIAN spy planes, and… the DUPONT family?! Here’s what @RealGeorgeWebb1 laid out (paraphrased for clarity but 100% his claims): Charlie Kirk is killed. Within HOURS — literally the FIRST phone call the brand-new TPUSA CEO Justin Strife makes (a guy who’s been in the job exactly 8 days after they refused a DOGE audit) — is to Pierre Dupont. → A “billion-dollar offer you can’t refuse” (Candace Owens’ words) went out 24-48 hours BEFORE Charlie was dead. Pierre Dupont = the mysterious “Raymond” that Hunter Biden was texting at Burisma? Webb’s been tracking this alias for 9 years. Same guy? Same network? Burisma was never just “gas.” It was a front: • Laundering Israeli weapons tech through Egypt • Selling to UAE & Saudi (who refuse to buy direct from Israel) • Egyptian diplomat Waleed Mahmoud (diplomatic immunity) running the flights Those “Egyptian planes” Candace keeps posting about? 73 documented flights. Myself and Baron found 5 more. → These are the same planes doing mass cellphone harvesting, facial recognition, and license-plate collection at every major TPUSA event (and very likely Trump & JD Vance events too). The Duponts now have the biggest private surveillance database in America built off MAGA events. Webb’s closing line: “Stop arguing with each other on X and start digging into the Duponts. That’s the key to the whole Deep State ratline right now.” Kash Patel is out here saying a bag of hot dogs stops a .30-06 while the real threat is buying out the conservative youth movement the day after they whack its leader. The same week Charlie gets taken out, the Duponts swoop in with suitcases of cash and a new CEO who’s never run anything suddenly runs everything. If this doesn’t smell like a Mafia-style hostile takeover with intelligence-agency cover, I don’t know what does. Tag @RealCandaceO . Repost this. We need a full war-room on the Dupont family — yesterday. Who’s ready to connect the final dots? @FBIDirectorKash Do Your JOB!!! Dupont = the new Soros, but with better lawyers and private spy planes. Wake up.

Video Transcript AI Summary

DuPonts are at the center of a web being discussed by George Webb and Candace Owens. Candace Owens has claimed that Pierre DuPont delivered a mafia-style offer “you can’t refuse” twenty-four hours before Charlie Kirk’s death (possibly forty-eight hours before). Justin Strife, the CEO who has been in position for eight days since the Doge audit was refused by Tyler Boyer, reportedly made the first call after Charlie Kirk’s death to Pierre DuPont. Webb questions whether this is the first contact or if there were prior conversations, expressing interest in obtaining those phone messages to see how long the dialogue with Pierre DuPont has been ongoing. Webb draws a parallel spanning nine years to prior research involving Henri DuPont and a group or entity associated with Barisma and Hunter Biden, noting that Henri DuPont appears to be a fake name and that the real identity might be Pierre DuPont. He asserts that Barisma is a “shadow” or covert cover, and describes Burisma as trading weapons with the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, while fronting Israel technology so that Egyptians can sell the technology to oil-rich nations due to not wanting to buy directly from Israel. Webb mentions Walid Mahmoud, an Egyptian diplomat with diplomatic immunity, as part of this covert operation. The discussion continues with a plan to create a war-board or anti-war board in Michigan to chart these activities, including a roadmap for addressing the DuPont matter. Webb notes a DuPont database being created that allegedly collects extensive data on people, including planes, phones, cars, and facial recognition at TPUSA events, and suggests similar data collection at Trump and J. D. Vance events. He indicates that a “whole war board” will be put together with more flights data (73 flights associated with Egyptian planes and five more flights for Baron Coleman), to map the network and operations. Webb emphasizes the need to stop internal arguing and focus on the research into the DuPonts, stating that this research into DuPont-related activities is key. He ends with a sharp rebuke to Cash Patel, urging him to stop downplaying the threats and start performing his duties.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Okay. DuPont. DuPont. DuPont. George Webb here to talk about the DuPonts. And, of course, Candace Owens has already said Pierre DuPont made this offer you can't refuse, this mafia ultimatum twenty four hours before Charlie's dead, maybe forty eight hours before. But the CEO, the CFO, excuse me, Justin Strife, Justin Strife, who's only been the CEO since the Doge audit was refused by Tyler Boyer. So they refused the Doge audit and they put this new guy in, Justin Strife. He's only been CEO eight days. He the first call the first call he makes, right, after Charlie Kirk is killed, the first call is to Pierre Dupont. Now why is that? Is that the first time they've ever talked? A billion dollar offer? I I assume it's not the first time they talked. Would it be interesting to get those phone messages, see how long this conversation's been going on with Pierre Dupont? Interesting parallel here. Read in the last nine years of our research group talking about Henri Dupont with a company called Barisma. I think I've heard of Barisma before. Have you heard of Barisma before with Hunter Biden on all the communication between Hunter Biden and Henri DuPont? Henri DuPont turns out to be a fake name. We couldn't figure out who it was. It might be Pierre DuPont. Remember Barisma and what they're doing. Burisma is a shadow. Burisma is a covert cover. Right? Burisma is trading weapons with UAE, trading weapons with Saudi Arabia, trading weapons with Egypt, fronting a lot of Israel technology so that the Egyptians can sell the technology to oil rich city nations because they don't wanna buy from Israel specifically. Isn't that kind of Walid Mahmoud? He's a Egyptian diplomat. He's on the plane. Right? He's one of the guys that we talked about with diplomatic immunity to have this kind of covert operation. It's been nine years we've been talking about this, and Candace is on the same parallel track with lots of evidence, lots of receipts with these Egyptian planes, 73 flights. Baron Coleman has another five flights that we're gonna add in. We're gonna make a whole war board, anti war board actually in Michigan to chart all this. Going there tomorrow, and everybody's coming together to to join together in fighting this deep state, taking down, getting into this, DuPont database that's being collected on people with all these planes. These planes collecting everybody's phone. These planes are collecting everybody's car information. They're collecting everybody's facial recognition at these TPUSA events. I think the same thing happened at the Trump events. I think the same thing happened at the J. D. Vance events. We're gonna find out, but we need to stop arguing amongst ourselves and get get on the stick, get into the research, right, of the DuPonts. That's gonna be key. Cash Patel, stop saying a bag of hotdogs can stop a 30 ought six and start doing your job.

@klsnowden64 - Rocko The Irishman

@ProjectConstitu @RealGeorgeWebb1 UPDATE https://t.co/YxpRQM15uu

@RealGeorgeWebb1 - George Webb - Investigative Journalist

Who will tell you the truth about why Charlie Kirk was actually killed? It's Ukraine and Dupont, but the world doesn't know that yet. https://t.co/Z4cjiDTzq0

Video Transcript AI Summary

DuPont and Burisma are linked in a narrative the speaker claims has been studied for nine years by their research group. The speaker asserts that Burisma actually means “shadow created by one planet on another planet,” describing Burisma as a shadow or cover story used to justify and drive a sequence of geopolitical actions. The claim is that Burisma serves as a cover for Libya, Syria, Ukraine, the CIA’s overthrows, and the war that followed, which the speaker says was anticipated. The speaker identifies Pierre DuPont (spelled in places as Pierre Duplon) as a conduit to keep the war going, not for a short term but for a long, Iraq-type or Afghanistan/Vietnam-type war lasting fifteen to twenty years. They assert that this Burisma plan has been in place for ten years, beginning with the CIO overthrow of Ukraine. According to the speaker, Henri DuPont was a key agent, and Candace Owens has taken up this role with Pierre DuPont. A central claim is about who is in the war and who stands in the way of it. The speaker explicitly names Charlie Kirk as someone “in the way of the war.” They state that he started to talk against it and is about to begin a large college tour speaking against the war. The question posed is: who is in the way of the war, and what do people do when they get in the way of the war? The speaker says they are in Denver at the moment and plan to move on to Michigan and Tennessee, and then across the country. Their stated goal is to ask this question while bringing “the best people in citizen journalism” to tell the truth. The overarching message is a depiction of a coordinated long-term plan tied to Burisma and DuPont, designed to sustain a major conflict, with specific figures named as pivotal in either driving or opposing the war. In sum, the transcript presents a claimed nine-year research-based narrative linking Burisma as a cover for a CIA-backed Ukraine overthrow and a long-term war strategy, with Pierre DuPont as a key conduit, Henri DuPont as an earlier agent, Candace Owens connected to Pierre DuPont, and Charlie Kirk portrayed as a barrier to the war. The speakers outline a nationwide journalistic effort to expose these claims.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: DuPont and Burisma. DuPont and Burisma. DuPont and Burisma. That's what Candace Owens is working on with this DuPont connection to Pierre DuPont, this mafia ultimatum, this do or die twenty four hours within the death of Charlie Kirk. And we are working the last nine years, our research group on DuPont and Burisma as Burisma is a cover. Burisma actually means shadow created by one planet on another planet. Right? So that's what Burisma means. A shadow we've worked on it for nine years. A shadow of Libya, a cover story for Syria, a cover story for Ukraine, the CIA overthrow in Ukraine, and the eventual war which we were expecting and which did occur. And now we're looking at this Pierre Duplon as the conduit to keep the war going, not just a couple of years, but an Iraq type of war, the Ukraine war to become an Afghanistan type of war, a Vietnam type of war, a fifteen to twenty year war. This Burisma plan has been in place for ten years starting with the CIO overthrow of Ukraine. Who is the key agent? We had an Henri DuPont Henri DuPont. Now Candace has this Pierre DuPont. Who's in the war who's in the way of the war? Who's in the way of the war? Who is in the way of the war? Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's in the way of the war. He started to talk against it. He's about ready to start his big college tour talking against the war. Who is in the way of the war, and what do people do when you get in the way of the war? That's the question we're trying to ask. We're here in Denver. We're gonna be moving on to Michigan. We're gonna be moving on to Tennessee. Going all around the country to ask this question, we're bringing the best people in citizen journalism to tell you the truth.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 6, 2025 at 7:15 PM

Saved - December 8, 2025 at 12:31 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

I’m highlighting a massive update tying the Marseille hat to a Foreign Legion unit, not a random tourist souvenir. The hat guy was within 20 feet of Charlie Kirk, possibly on an inner security allow list. The hater appears linked to Camp de Carpiagne, home base for 1er REC commandos, suggesting a trained op rather than coincidence. Post-shot, he exits to a black SUV in seconds. Marseille's military density supports a hub for ops; DGSE link is claimed, with Legion as the offshore muscle. The implication: foreign assets inside TPUSA perimeters.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 MASSIVE UPDATE: The Marseille Hat Conspiracy Just Got DEEPER – French Foreign Legion Assassin Ties EXPOSED! 😱🔥 If you thought the French Legion soldier lurking 10ft from Charlie Kirk was wild... buckle up. Shoutout to @GoingStrategic (FOLLOW HIM!) who dug HOURS into this rabbit hole & uncovered BREAKTHROUGHS that SCREAM foreign op. This isn't coincidence – it's a pattern. Thread incoming, but here's the BOMBSHELLS: 1️⃣ VIP SECURITY BREACH: The hat guy? Likely on TPUSA's "ALLOW LIST" for the INNER SECURITY ZONE. He was ~20ft from Charlie DURING the shot. Regulars don't get that close. We're talking CREDS. His NAME is out there – who recognizes him? 👀 2️⃣ LEGION HQ CONFIRMED: That Marseille hat? Bought 1-18 MILES from Camp de Carpiagne – elite French Foreign Legion base. Not random tourist merch. This is HOME TURF for the unit hunting elites like Charlie & Candace. 3️⃣ NARROWED TO COMMANDOS: Zooming in: 1er Régiment étranger de cavalerie (1er REC) – the SPECIFIC Legion squad training AT Carpiagne. Armored cavalry pros. Assassins in berets. Coincidence? Nah. 4️⃣ INSTANT EXTRACTION: Post-shot, hat guy "exfills" to a BLACK SUV with HATCH OPEN – SLAMS shut in <2 SECS. Planned getaway? Security cams don't lie. He KNEW the play. 5️⃣ MARSEILLE = MILITARY GHOST TOWN: Southern France's "wild west" – 9HR train from Paris (pop center). High military density, low tourists. Perfect op hub. Why there? Follow the Legion. 6️⃣ DGSE HIT SQUAD LINK: France's CIA (DGSE) deploys Service Action elites for wet work. But guess what? NONE of their Paris-based commandos (CPES, CPEOM, etc.) operate in Marseille. ONLY the FOREIGN LEGION does. Overseas muscle for black ops. Charlie was collateral... or was he TARGET #2 after Candace? This ties DIRECTLY to the Owens plot intel. Foreign assets inside TPUSA perimeters? WAKE UP. @TPUSA @MrsErikaKirk @RealCandaceO – your teams need to TALK. Be wary of who is protecting you? Please Tag @RealCandaceO

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 BREAKING: FRENCH FOREIGN LEGION SOLDIER CAUGHT 10 FEET From CHARLIE KIRK Right BEFORE The SHOT — Same Unit Also HUNTING Candace Owens?! 😱 Same Unit Tied to the Candace Owens Hit Squad? I’m not saying it’s a coincidence… but explain THIS Look at this photo from inside the secure zone at Charlie Kirk’s last event. Dead center: a man in a Marseille hat standing literally feet away from Charlie, inside security perimeters that regular people couldn’t even dream of getting through. Why does this matter? Camp de Carpiagne — the elite French Foreign Legion training base — is 18 miles from Marseille. Same exact region. Same exact unit that intel sources have repeatedly tied to the active plot against Candace Owens… and now we find one of their boys in a Marseille cap inside the kill box the day Charlie drops? This isn’t “random European tourist” energy. This is “I have credentials, I know exactly where to stand, and nobody stopped me” energy. So let’s ask the question TPUSA doesn’t want asked: ❓French military asset? ❓Part of the same team that’s reportedly coming for Candace? ❓Just the world’s unluckiest vacation? We’re only looking for the truth. If you ARE this guy in the Marseille hat and you’ve got an innocent explanation — inbox is open, no judgment. If you KNOW this guy — slide into my DM's right now. Because after everything that’s come out in the last 48 hours… another “coincidence” like this isn’t a coincidence anymore. Tag @RealCandaceO and share with everyone who still thinks Charlie’s death was just some “lone wolf.” The puzzle pieces are stacking up and they all point overseas. Who is Marseille Hat Guy? Drop your theories below. The clock is ticking. 👀

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 5, 2025 at 11:43 PM

Saved - December 6, 2025 at 5:36 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

I flag a new red flag: Emmanuel Beerer, claimed UVU crowd eyewitness, yet no proof he was there. Within hours, PBS, CNN, MSNBC found him in Salt Lake City for emotional interviews. How did outlets know to go to that complex, learn his name, or secure a media handler? Candace doubts he’s real—citing past cases like Tiffany Barker. She asks for DM’d photos, timestamps, or an explanation of pre‑selection. Call logs, journalists, addresses—demand answers.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 NEW RED FLAG JUST DROPPED: Meet Emmanuel Beerer – The Mystery “Eyewitness” Every Legacy Outlet Magically Found in SALT LAKE CITY Instead of on Campus 🚩 Candace Owens just put the entire media under the microscope, and one name keeps glowing neon: Emmanuel Beerer Former Oracle software engineer (German national) Claims he was in the UVU crowd when Charlie was shot ZERO photos or videos of him actually being there Yet somehow, within hours, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, and every major network tracked him down… in Salt Lake City… for emotional eyewitness interviews Question: How did EVERY corporate outlet know to drive 45 minutes away to a random apartment complex instead of interviewing the hundreds of traumatized students still on campus? How did they even know his name- Did he post something? Call them? Get handed a media handler? Watch him on @NewsHour : “I heard the loud sound… we all ducked…” Sounds emotional, right? Except Candace can’t find a single frame of him in the thousands of crowd photos and videos. Not one. @NewsHour How did you come about interviewing him on this day? The WORLD wants answers! This is the same playbook they used with “Tiffany Barker” – another “random attendee” who later admitted she got the morning news slot because she knew the right people. So either Emmanuel Beerer is the most camera-shy eyewitness in history… or he was pre-selected, pre-prepped, and pre-positioned to feed the “lone gunman, rooftop shooter” script before the crime scene was even processed. Candace is now asking the public: If you were at UVU on September 10th and saw Emmanuel Beerer in the crowd, DM photos, videos, timestamps – anything. If you ARE Emmanuel Beerer… explain how every network found you in Salt Lake City while the campus was still on lockdown. The same media that ignored the maroon military signals, the Egyptian planes, and the Israeli Google spikes suddenly had this guy’s home address and a film crew ready to roll. FOLLOW @RealCandaceO And Go watch her FULL livestream from today, I'll drop the link in the comments. We see you. Tag every journalist who platformed him. Demand the call logs. The matrix is glitching hard.

Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker introduces Emmanuel Bearer as someone they consider extremely shady and outlines a request to obtain explicit footage of him, specifically who he was with in the crowd, and to identify every person in attendance. The speaker claims Bearer is a former Oracle engineer, likely from Germany, and notes that Bearer attended the event. They question how Bearer, a relatively obscure figure, became an eyewitness who appeared in Salt Lake City in coverage by the mainstream media, specifically mentioning PBS. The speaker asks how PBS or other media outlets knew to reach out to Bearer and whether Bearer tweeted or otherwise indicated he was there. The speaker describes a desire to understand the process by which Bearer was selected for media interviews and to replicate a method of on-the-ground reporting at the UVU campus rather than relying on Bearer’s account. They reference a prior incident involving Tiffany Barker to illustrate concerns about how media connections are made and how certain individuals gain attention. The speaker asks for clarification on how Emmanuel Bearer was chosen as an eyewitness and why mainstream media pursued him. The speaker then presents a clip of Bearer testifying on PBS, quoting Bearer: “I hear this loud sound, and I'm like, that wasn't what I thought it was, is it? I was like, no. This can't be happening right now. And we all ducked.” They note that Bearer appeared on nearly every news channel and mention that there may be a longer clip they could locate. Finally, the speaker appeals to anyone who attended the UVU event with Bearer to come forward to clarify who Bearer was with, to send photos, and to explain how Bearer became an eyewitness that the mainstream media wanted to speak to, expressing strong suspicion about the unattended appearance and coverage of Bearer.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: I wanted to introduce you guys, by the way, to somebody that I do think is extremely shady. Okay? Extremely suspicious to me, and I can give you a variety of reasons, but I'd rather just ask for your help in, let me give you something explicit. I would like to see footage of him, period, point blank, who he was with in the crowd. I'm starting to, like, identify every person there. That's where I'm at. I'm micromanaging. I'm doing my best carrot over here. I would like to even find him on the day of Charlie Kirk's assassination in the crowd. His name is Emmanuel Bearer, and there are a million and one reasons why I wanted to know more about him. Look. He's a former employee of Oracle. He's in engineering. I believe he's from Germany from what I looked into. He's a software engineer, and he attended the event. But somehow, I don't see any photos of him at the event, and he was plucked from obscurity by the mainstream media as an eyewitness in Salt Lake City. Like, they went to film him in Salt Lake City. I just would like to know how these media requests came about. Like, did he tweet something and you knew he was there? Like, actually, if you are PBS, which I'm about to show you a clip of him speaking on PBS, how did you know to reach out to this man? That's the first question I'd like to have answered. Right? Because I'm thinking if I'm sending people down, I'm not sending them to Salt Lake City. Right? I'm gonna send people, a truck down, a news truck down to UVU campus. I'm gonna go around and try to speak to people on campus organically, people that are students and attended this event, without a connection, which ended up being a Tiffany Barker situation where she said, oh, I was friends with, you know, Jeff Lehman, and that's the reason that I was able to get the news hit in the morning. How did Emmanuel Berer get picked out in Salt Lake City? Okay. I am going to let you listen to him speak and what he testified to on that day. Take a listen. Speaker 1: I hear this loud sound, and I'm like, that wasn't what I thought it was, is it? I was like, no. This can't be happening right now. And we all ducked. Speaker 0: Okay. So, yeah, they had him on basically every news channel. I think there is a longer clip, and I might be able to find it. But I, yeah, I would like to find him. So if you attended the UVU event and you went with Emmanuel, maybe you are Emmanuel, and you are watching this, and, you would like to clarify who you were with and send some photos and some pictures and also explain to me how you became an eyewitness that all the mainstream media wanted to speak to, I would deeply appreciate that because I find that to be suspicious. I just do.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 5, 2025 at 7:14 PM

Saved - December 5, 2025 at 8:42 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I recap: Blake Neff’s Sept 11, 2025 livestream claimed he sent Telegram blasts to lock down TPUSA, then called his mom in panic—no mention of Mikey or a heroic moment. By late Oct 2025, a Charlie Kirk Show interview reimagined Mikey as the trembling hero, with the video deleted. I’m puzzled why the original clip was scrubbed and the timeline rewritten, hinting at a cover-up.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 EXPOSED: Blake Neff's Story on the Charlie Kirk "Assassination Attempt" Just Got CAUGHT CHANGING – And He DELETED the Evidence! 🚨 You won't believe this flip-flop... On Sept 11, 2025, @BlakeSNeff (Charlie Kirk's producer) goes live from his car: Says he sent a Telegram blasts to TPUSA to LOCK DOWN the org, then frantically call his mom, total panic mode – but ZERO mention of "Mikey" (Michael McCoy, the "hero" who supposedly saved the day). No "quivering lip," no HEROIC phone calls, nada. Just raw chaos after the "shot" rings out. Fast-forward to late October 2025: Suddenly, in a Charlie Kirk Show podcast with @AndrewKolvet (now conveniently DELETED from the internet – yeah, we archived it), Blake's tale morphs into a full-blown Hollywood script. Now "Mikey" is the trembling patriot on the phone with mom, "quivering lip" and all, single-handedly saving Charlie like some action hero. What happened to the lockdown frenzy? Poof – rewritten. Why the rewrite? Why scrub the original video? This isn't a "memory lapse" – it's a straight-up LIE to prop up the hero narrative while burying the sloppy initial response. Shoutout to @realbaronpod for the dig, and @alleytopfiles for piecing it together. The full side-by-side clips are damning (check the thread below). If this was a real assassination attempt, why the script changes? Who's directing this TPUSA drama? Candace was right to call BS – the house of cards is crumbling. Drop a 🤥 if you smell the cover-up.

@alleytopfiles - Alley Files

🚨BLAKE NEFF LIES CHANGES HIS accounts of Sept 11/25 - Oct 27/25. FIRST ☝️was telegram tpUSA to lock down and no talk of no Mikey ? No quiver ? And more BIG credits to @realbaronpod watch his Live stream good find Baron. Here is a clip I made of the changed story @RealCandaceO https://t.co/vSSi7PvTJ0

Video Transcript AI Summary

I was about 10 feet to Charlie's left when it happened. It was one of those moments that will crystallize in your mind forever. You hear the pop, and it’s not completely clear what it is at first. I looked to my right and immediately saw what had happened. It was just one shot. The security got him immediately, got him into the car immediately, and then out again. They could not have done their job any better. Then, what do we do? I sent a message on Telegram to Turning Point, telling them to lockdown. I imagined they’d already seen it, but I said, lockdown Turning Point. I called my mom and said, I can’t say more, but mom, Charlie got shot. I love you. I have to go. Then I met with other team members, and we got to the hospital within about twenty-five minutes, and the rest of the day unfolded from there. Staff decided to address this head on because there’s so much intrigue, and I’m going to do a generous thing. The intrigue is because people care about Charlie. Blake, you were there and you interacted with Mikey. You left the scene and then reconnected with Mikey. So, explain what the video is. The video is by someone who attacked Mikey, Charlie’s friend, Charlie’s chief of staff, a guy we’ve seen on the show the last few weeks. They claim, based on a few seconds of clips, that he allegedly has a nonchalant or calm reaction to Charlie’s murder. This is an extremely disgusting attack. I was there when it happened and I was next to Mikey when it happened. When the shooting occurs, we both hear a loud crack and turn to see Charlie who has been shot. We both realize there is a shooter on the scene. We hear the crack and don’t know if it came from far or close, or if a mass shooting is unfolding. My reaction, and Mikey’s, was to get out of there before we were both shot. That is not us abandoning Charlie. Charlie had a security team; they leapt into action and got Charlie out, which was their job. My job was not to be a hero or get in the way. I remember running past the SUV we came in on, thinking, should I get in that car? Then I thought that would be stupid, and I kept going. I was ahead of Mikey as we left. We got out and ran for more than fifteen or twenty seconds. I paused, looked around, and saw Mikey. I will never forget what I saw. Mikey is usually bubbly and happy, but he was profoundly freaked out. His lip was quivering, something I’d never seen from him. He said, I think he literally said, he needs to call Erica, then he calls Erica. He also calls his dad, Rob McCoy, and says, Dad, someone shot Charlie. You need to call all of your pastor friends. We then gathered to direct actions: to get to the hospital and to relay information to Erica. After the call, Mikey regained control and stepped up, directing a battle-like flow: get to the hospital, wait here, and get information to Erica.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: I would say I was about 10 feet to Charlie's left when it happened, and it was just it's, you know, one of those moments that will crystallize in your mind forever. You know? You hear that the pop, and it's not completely clear immediately what it is. But then I I looked to my right, and I saw immediately what it was, and I'll never forget it. Speaker 1: Did it did it seem surreal in a sense? Did it seem like Butler? Did it seem like everyone sort of, you know you know, scatters, or or was it just just just kind of as confusing as it sounds? Speaker 0: It it was definitely confusing, but it was also you know, it was how to describe it? It was clear what had happened. There was there was only one shot. We all immediately saw what had happened. You're correct. The security got him immediately, got him into the car immediately, got him out immediately. They could not have done their job on that front any better. And then at that point, it was, know, what do we do? And I know on my end, I think the first thing I did was I sent a message to, I I opened Telegram, and I went to our Turning Point thing. And I said, lockdown Turning Point. I imagine they'd already seen it at two, but I just said, lock it down. Something happened. Do it right ASAP. And then I'll be honest, I I called my mom because I didn't know if there would be anyone else out there, if anything else would happen. So I just called my mom and said immediately, I can't say more, but mom, Charlie got shot. I love you. I have to go. And then from there, I met up with some other members of the team. We got to the hospital within, I'd say, about twenty five minutes or so, and the rest of the day unfolded from there. Speaker 2: Staff, we made the decision that we wanted to address this head on because, you know, candidly, there's so much intrigue. And I'm gonna I'm gonna do a generous thing. I'm the the intrigue is because people care about Charlie. Okay? So that part, I understand. Speaker 1: You're more generous than I'd be. Speaker 2: Yes. And that's fine. And I am going to give you the the the floor here now, Blake, because you were there and you actually interact with Mikey. You were with Mikey. You you left the scene and then re Speaker 1: No. No. Speaker 2: Connected with Mikey. So explain what the video is. Speaker 1: Alright. I'm not gonna Set the scene. Well, I'm not going to wallow in it at length, but people have it's gone viral and people have asked us to address it. We're going to do so briefly. The video, without going way into it, is by I can't even remember the guy's name. Someone had made a video that is attacking Mikey, Charlie's friend, Charlie's chief of staff, a guy all of us know, a guy who we've seen on the show here the last few weeks. They are attacking him, claiming based on a few seconds of clips that he allegedly has, like, a nonchalant or calm reaction to Charlie's murder. And I'm just going to be blunt about this. This is a extremely disgusting attack. And I can speak to that because I was there when it happened, and I was next to Mikey when it happened. And what I can say is, again, I can't say every single thing that happened, but I wanna talk about this specific narrow thing, that the shooting occurs. I am next to Mikey. Both of us hear a loud crack. We both turn. We both see Charlie who has been shot. Both of us, I think at about the same time, realize that that means there is a shooter who is on the scene. And, you know, you just hear the crack, so you don't know, did it come from far away? Did it come from close? Is there a mass shooter unfolding right now? So I and him both had the reaction of, let's get out of here before we were both shot. That is not us abandoning Charlie. Charlie had a security team. They all leapt immediately into action, and they got Charlie out of there, which was what their job was to do. My job was not to get in the way and screw this up because, like, I had to be a hero. That was not my job. I remember even running past both of us going past the, you know, the SUV that we came in on, and me thinking, should I get in that car? And then thinking, no. That's a really stupid thing to do. And then I kept going. So I was not with Mikey I don't remember being with him. I think I was ahead of him as we left. And then we get out, and I run for must have can have been more than fifteen or twenty seconds. And then I realized there hasn't been another shot, so the shooter has likely been detained or stopped or something, not in immediate danger. I pause. I look around me, and I see Mikey. And I see Mikey there. And I'll never truthfully, I will never forget what I saw, because I've seen Mikey almost every day for the past two years. I know his personality very well. He's a very bubbly guy. He's a very happy guy almost all of the time. And I'll never forget what I saw, because it was clear in the moment that he he was profoundly freaked out. What I'll always remember is the way his his lip was quivering, which I'd never seen before, and you you very rarely see from someone that he was freaking out. And then I think he literally said to me I I might be imagining this, but I think what he literally said was he's and then he was looking around, and then he says, I I need to call Erica. And he then he takes his phone, and he begins calling Erica, and I don't wanna disclose how that Yeah. Call unfolded, but he did that this you know, your mind extends all of this, but that is happening within a minute of all of this occurring. I remember he calls Erica. I, around the same time, I pull out my phone and I call my mom just to say, mom, there's been a shooting you're going to see on the news. I'm okay. You know, pray for me. I've gotta go. And I remember that call. And around the time I I put that phone away, and then he immediately calls his dad. He calls Rob McCoy, and he says, dad, someone shot Charlie. You need to call all of your pastor friends. Charlie was hit. We need everyone to pray right now. And that's what he told him. And I guess it's just it's very disgusting for me as someone who witnessed this, who saw Mikey hugely distressed and then step up in the moment. Because after that was call that call was over, I saw Mikey, like, get total mastery of himself, that he realized he had to step up in this situation. And he from that point, he was like he was like a general directing a battle, where he was, you know, grabbing people and saying, Okay, we need to get to the hospital, and we need to do these things, and you guys need to wait here. I need to get in here to get information so that I can get it to get it to Erica.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - December 2, 2025 at 4:27 PM

Saved - December 2, 2025 at 6:13 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I connect the dots the media won’t touch: Owens claims a French official says Macron green-lit her assassination with a $1.5M payoff; a network including Israeli assets is tied to Kirk’s case. The shooter’s identity is disputed by a French source, who hints training by the French Foreign Legion. Tennessee Gov. Lee meets Israeli diplomats and oversees a $1.5B Orano deal, while silence comes from FBI, the Élysée, and the governor. Anti-Macron voices targeted; archives scrubbed. Demand accountability.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨EXPOSED: TENNESSEE Just Became GROUND ZERO For The CANDACE OWENS / CHARLIE KIRK COVER-UP Let’s connect the dots the media refuses to touch: 1️⃣ Candace Owens (who lives in Tennessee) goes public: A high-level French government official warns her that Macron personally green-lit her assassination. $1.5 million allegedly paid. Squad includes one Israeli operative + French Foreign Legion assets. Same network allegedly behind Charlie Kirk’s public execution. 2️⃣ Candace’s French source NEVER said “Tyler Robinson” was the shooter. They said “Charlie Kirk’s assassin trained with the French Foreign Legion 13th Brigade.” Candace clarified last night: “Tyler Robinson is the patsy. He never even stepped on that campus. His only ‘job’ was dropping clothes by a Dairy Queen & cemetery to frame him.” France’s “denial” only said “Tyler Robinson was never in the Legion.” That’s not a denial — that’s a confession they know he’s not the real shooter. 3️⃣ Tennessee Governor Bill Lee’s VERY interesting calendar: • November 19 — private meeting with Israeli Consul General Eitan Weiss in Nashville, full photo op, “continued support for Israel.” • Same state just handed Macron’s government-owned company Orano 920 acres in Oak Ridge + $1.5 BILLION in incentives (Macron personally restructured Orano when he was Economy Minister). • Israel is the ONLY foreign government aggressively selling bonds directly to U.S. states — Tennessee is buying. 4️⃣ Silence is deafening: • Candace reported the threat to FBI, White House, counter-terrorism → zero public response. • Élysée Palace → zero denial of the $1.5M hit. • Governor Lee → zero comment on any of it while meeting the exact foreign players named. So let me get this straight… The two loudest anti-Macron, anti-deep-state voices in America (Charlie Kirk & Candace Owens) both get targeted. One is publicly executed. One is told she’s next. Both cases point to French + Israeli assets. And the Governor of the state where Candace lives is quietly cutting billion-dollar deals with Macron’s company and posing for photos with Israeli diplomats — weeks after the hits? 5️⃣ But wait—evidence is VANISHING: Tried pulling Macron's official 2023 Orano announcement vid from France 24 & Even the OFFICIAL Élysée Palace Archive?Straight 404 errors. YouTube embed? "This video isn't available anymore." Dug deeper: Internet Archive's Wayback Machine? ZERO snapshots archived from May 2023 onward—no traces, no redirects, nada. A routine state visit from 2+ years ago, scrubbed clean across official sites and global archives? Right as Candace exposes Macron's hit squad? This isn't "lost media"—it's a digital hit job. They're erasing the paper trail before your eyes. Share screenshots NOW before they vanish too. So let me get this straight… The two loudest anti-Macron, anti-deep-state voices in America (Charlie Kirk & Candace Owens) both get targeted. One is publicly executed. One is told she’s next. Both cases point to French + Israeli assets. And the Governor of the state where Candace lives is quietly cutting billion-dollar deals with Macron’s company and posing for photos with Israeli diplomats — weeks after the hits? Now they're memory-holing the proof? If this happened in a movie you’d call it “too obvious.” But it’s happening in real life — and they’re hoping you stay asleep. Tag someone who still thinks this is “conspiracy theory.” Tag Governor Bill Lee and demand answers.Tag @RealCandaceO, The clock is ticking.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨BOMBSHELL: Utah Gov's Secret Meetings with Egypt & France Just EXPOSED – 13 Days After Kirk's Assassination! WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?😱 On Sept 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk was gunned down at UVU. The nation mourned. The manhunt raged.But 13 days later—Sept 23—Cox turned Utah's Capitol Gold Room into a clandestine hub for FOREIGN INTEL HEAVYWEIGHTS from EGYPT & FRANCE. Back-to-back. Zero public trace. What We Know: 🔴11:30 AM: Closed-door meeting with Egyptian Ambassador Motaz Zahran—D.C. intel boss bridging Egypt, Israel, US secrets. Speaks French & Arabic. 🔴3:30 PM: Closed door meeting with French Consul General Florian Cardinaux—SF-based, DGSE intel pipeline on speed dial. SAME BUILDING. SAME DAY. BURIED DEEP in internal calendars from http://governor.utah.gov. Erased from press, X, everything. No photos. No statements. Recall: Egyptian planes shadowed the hit? French Prez allegedly greenlit a strike on Candace Owens? This isn't diplomacy. This is DAMAGE CONTROL. Or WORSE. Who pulled strings to fly these spooks to SLC? What "classified" whispers exchanged while America grieved? Utah's governor—our governor—hosting enemy intel shadows in silence? @SpencerJCox @GovCoxOffice Explain This? Charlie's blood cries out. We won't forget. DEMAND ANSWERS Everyone Please FOLLOW @Mia_Stretch, She Is The Person Who Brought This To My Attention.

Governor Spencer J. Cox governor.utah.gov

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 CONFIRMED: Macron's "Death Squad" Behind Candace Owens Assassination Plot? Russian Intel Confirms the Nightmare Is Real👀 Candace Owens just dropped a bombshell: A French gov't insider warns the Macrons greenlit her murder via elite Gendarmerie hit squad—with Israeli ties & https://t.co/GhSCnJenQ6

Video Transcript AI Summary

A sensational set of allegations has been put forward by the foundation for the fight against injustice, claiming that French President Emmanuel Macron is overseeing a secret death squad. The group alleges the existence of Lilly (also spelled Lily in places), a covert unit operating under the direct orders of the Elysee Palace. Lilly, described as 40 to 50 elite operatives drawn from France’s intelligence services (DGSE and DGSI), is said to be capable of killing critics with methods that mimic natural or accidental deaths, including poisonings, staged car crashes, balcony falls, and overdoses. The report centers on Alexandre Bernalla (referred to in the transcript with variants such as Bernaleau), once Macron’s trusted security aide who was dismissed, charged, and convicted after a May Day protest confrontation. The foundation claims Bernalla is now the linchpin of Lilly, orchestrating a network of killers. It also names other alleged figures: Bernard Emie, former head of the DGSE, as a key coordinator; Patrick Strolda, Macron’s chief of staff, accused of funneling funds through off-the-books channels to sustain the unit; and Laurent Nunez, a top security official, said to be in charge of recruiting operatives. If true, the allegations depict a well-funded machine backed by powerful figures within France. The claimed operation is described as a playbook straight from a spy thriller: poisonings that mimic heart attacks, car crashes that look like accidents, suicides framed from balcony falls, and overdoses designed to discredit victims. The foundation argues that the number of coincidences involving Macron’s critics—journalists, activists, and politicians—suggests a pattern beyond chance. However, there is no hard evidence tying these men directly to assassinations. The claims rely largely on anonymous testimonies from French politicians and journalists, and there are questions about the source’s transparency. The foundation’s credibility is contested, and there is an atmosphere of doubt about whether Lilly exists at all. Dismissals of the claims include speculation about coordinated smear campaigns, possibly fueled by Macron’s domestic enemies or foreign actors such as Russia, which is accused of disseminating disinformation about him. Macron’s supporters counter that he remains a reformer pursuing growth and international diplomacy, pointing to investments like the €20,000,000,000 secured at the 2025 Choose France Summit. The Elysee Palace has likewise pushback against far-fetched claims, including previous debunked rumors about Macron on trains with other European leaders, attributed to Kremlin-backed accounts. The discussion weighs whether Lilly is a genuine hidden operation or a fabrication, while acknowledging that anonymous sources and a lack of verifiable documents complicate the truth. Ultimately, the discussion frames Lilly as either a symbol of a dangerous abuse of power or a tool of disinformation, illustrating how distrust in institutions can be amplified by sensational claims. The core takeaway is that Macron’s presidency is a lightning rod, with Lilly allegations highlighting broader questions about trust in government and the fragility of democratic institutions.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: If you think the French government is all about liberty and transparency, what I'm about to tell you might shatter that illusion. Explosive allegations have surfaced, claiming president Emmanuel Macron is running a secret death squad. Yes, you heard that right. A covert team of assassins targeting journalists, politicians, and activists who dared to oppose him. Stay with me, because this story is about to take you down a rabbit hole of power, betrayal and chilling conspiracies that could redefine what you think about modern France. This isn't just another political scandal. It's a bombshell investigation from the foundation for the fight against injustice. A group claiming to have uncovered evidence of a clandestine unit operating under the direct orders of the Elysee Palace. They call it Lily, a nod to the fleur de lis, France's ancient symbol of royalty, and it's allegedly made up of 40 to 50 elite operatives, handpicked for their ability to kill without hesitation. We're talking poisonings, staged accidents, and sniper hits, all designed to look like tragic coincidences. But as these incidents pile up, the question looms. Is this the work of a democratic leader or something far darker? The accusations point to a shadowy network tied to some of Macron's closest allies, including a name you might recognize, Alexandra Benalla, a figure already infamous for his role in violent incidents. If these claims are true, they could expose a level of corruption and control that rivals the darkest chapters of political history. But before we dive deeper, let's ask ourselves, how did we get here, and why should you care? Because if a government can silence its critics in the shadows, what does that mean for freedom anywhere? The story starts with whispers, rumors that have been circulating in France's political underbelly for years. Macron, elected in 2017 as a fresh face of progressive reform, has faced mounting criticism for his handling of protests, economic policies, and foreign affairs. From the yellow vest movement to his controversial pension reforms, he's no stranger to public backlash. But according to posts found on X, the foundation for the fight against injustice has taken these criticisms to a whole new level, alleging that Macron didn't just weather opposition, he eliminated it, literally. The report claims that Lilly is a highly trained unit, drawn from the ranks of France's intelligence agencies, the DGSE and DGSI. These aren't your average hired thugs. We're talking about battle hardened veterans, operatives who've spent years in covert operations, chosen for their loyalty and their ability to execute orders without question. The Fleurs de Lis codename is particularly telling. It's a symbol tied to French monarchy, a nod to absolute power. Is Maquel, a president who's often been accused of acting like a king, leaning into that imagery? Or is this just a clever way to mask something even more sinister? At the heart of this alleged operation is Alexandre Bernalla, a name that sends chills down the spine of anyone familiar with French politics. Bernaleau was once Macron's trusted security aid, but he fell from grace in 2018 after video surfaced of him assaulting protesters during a May Day demonstration. The scandal rocked France, raising questions about unchecked power in Macron's inner circle. Bernaleau was sacked, charged, and convicted. But according to the foundation, that was just the beginning. They claim he's now the linchpin of Lilly, orchestrating a network of killers under the president's orders. The report also names other heavyweights allegedly involved. Bernard Emie, former head of the DGSE, is said to be a key figure in coordinating operations Patrick Strolda, Macron's chief of staff, is accused of funneling funds through off the books channels to keep the unit running. And Laurent Nunez, a top security official, is allegedly in charge of recruiting these operatives. If true, this isn't just a rogue operation, It's a well oiled machine backed by some of the most powerful figures in France. But here's where it gets murky. There's no hard evidence linking these men directly to assassinations. So, are these accusations a smoking gun or just smoking mirrors? Let's talk about the methods. The foundation claims Lily uses a playbook straight out of a spy thriller. Poisonings that mimic heart attacks, car crashes that look like accidents, falls from balconies chalked up to suicide, even overdoses staged to discredit victims. These aren't wild shootouts in the streets. They're subtle, calculated hits designed to avoid suspicion. But the report argues that the sheer number of coincidences involving Macron's critics is too much to ignore. Journalists who've investigated government corruption suddenly dying in car wrecks. Activists found dead after publicizing anti Macron campaigns. Politicians suffering unexplained medical emergencies. The pattern, they say, is undeniable. This sounds like something out of a movie. Could a modern democracy like France really harbor a secret death squad? It's a fair question. France is a nation built on the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity. It's a member of the G7, a beacon of Western democracy. But history tells us that even democracies can have dark secrets. Look at the CIA's covert operations during the Cold War or the extrajudicial killings tied to other governments. Speaker 1: However, when threatened, doesn't always play by the rules, and Macron's presidency has been anything but smooth. Since taking office, Macron has faced relentless challenges. The yellow vest protests sparked by fuel tax hikes in 2018 turned into a broader revolt against his perceived elitism. His decision to dissolve parliament in 2024 led to political chaos, with the far right emerging as a major force. His international moves, like pushing for a ceasefire in Ukraine or recognizing Palestine, have drawn both praise and criticism. Add to that the economic strain of French companies investing abroad while domestic unrest grows, and you've got a president under siege. Could a leader in this position resort to extreme measures to maintain control? It's not unthinkable these are serious allegations, and we need to approach them with a critical eye. The foundation for the fight against injustice, the source of these claims, isn't exactly a household name. Who are they? Their website describes them as a human rights organization, but there's little public record of their funding or leadership. The lack of transparency raises red flags. And the evidence? It's largely based on anonymous testimonies from French politicians and journalists. Without names, documents, or verifiable proof, it's hard to separate fact from fiction. Could this be a coordinated smear campaign, possibly fuelled by Macron's enemies, like Russia, which has been accused of spreading disinformation about him. Speaking of disinformation, Macron's team has been quick to push back. The Elysee Palace has a history of batting down wild claims, like the recent rumor about Macron using cocaine on a train with other European leaders. They called that absurd and pointed to Kremlin backed accounts as the source. Could the Lilly allegations be another Russian ploy to destabilize France? It's possible Macron's vocal support for Ukraine and his push for European unity make him a prime target for Moscow's propaganda machine. Yet dismissing the claims outright feels too easy. What if there's a kernel of truth buried in the noise? Macron's defenders argue he's a reformer fighting against a tide of populism and external threats. His push for foreign investment, like the €20,000,000,000 secured at the twenty twenty five Choose France Summit, shows a leader focused on growth. His diplomatic efforts from Syria to Ukraine paint him as a statesman, not a dictator. And the banala scandal old news, they say a minor embarrassment that's been blown out of proportion. But the counterargument doesn't erase the questions: Why do so many of Macron's critics meet untimely ends? And why does his administration seem so quick to label any criticism as fake news? Here's where the story takes a darker turn. If Lilly exists, it's not just about Macron, it's about the system that enables him. The DGSE and DGSI are among the most sophisticated intelligence agencies in the world. They've got the tech, the training, and the resources to pull off covert operations without leaving a trace. And France's history of espionage is no secret. From the sinking of the rainbow warrior in 1985 to the wiretapping scandals of the 1990s, the French state has a track record of playing dirty when it suits them. Could Lily be the latest chapter in that story? Let's imagine for a moment that these allegations are true. Picture a secret meeting in the Elysee where Macron, Benalla, and a handful of loyalists plot to silence a journalist who's getting too close to a corruption scandal. The order goes out, and within days, the target is gone a heart attack, a fall, a car crash. The public mourns, the media moves on, and the regime breathes easier. It's chilling, but it's not impossible. Power protects itself, and history is littered with examples of leaders who crossed lines to stay in control. But here's the flip side: what if this is all a fabrication? Macron's enemies, both domestic and foreign, have every reason to paint him as a villain. The far right, which has gained ground in France, thrives on narratives of betrayal and corruption. Russia, stung by Macron's support for Ukraine, has a clear motive to spread lies, and the foundation's reliance on anonymous sources makes it easy to dismiss their claims as gossip. Without concrete evidence, documents, recordings, or named witnesses, it's hard to take the story at face value. So where does that leave us? Caught in a fog of uncertainty, that's where. The truth is, we don't know if Lilly exists. The allegations are explosive, but they're also unproven. What we do know is that France is at a crossroads. Macron's presidency is under fire, his country is divided, and the stakes couldn't be higher. If these claims are true, they expose a terrifying abuse of power. If they're false, they're a stark reminder of how disinformation can weaponize doubt to destabilize a nation. Let's zoom out. This isn't just about France it's about what happens when trust in institutions crumbles, When people start believing their leaders are capable of anything murder, cover ups, betrayal it erodes the foundation of democracy. And that's the real danger here. Whether Lilly is real or not, the fact that these allegations are gaining traction shows how fragile faith in government has become. Every coincidence, every unexplained death fuels the fire, and in a world where truth is harder to pin down, that fire spreads fast. So what's the takeaway? Macron's presidency is a lightning rod, loved by some, loathed by others. The 'Lilly' allegations, true or not, are a symptom of a deeper problem, a growing distrust in power.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - November 25, 2025 at 8:57 PM

Saved - November 30, 2025 at 9:54 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I uncovered DHS contracts with former IDF soldiers serving as ICE agents in Chicago—over 120 in ICE Chicago out of 2,000 reviewed, with last names tracing to Israel and faces hidden. The claim extends: Israel has its own ICE office in Tel Aviv, implying a foreign military training and influence over US deportation ops. The post urges saving, sharing, and demanding answers.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨EXPOSED: 121 Former IDF SOLDIERS Now Working as ICE Agents in CHICAGO… America Is Officially OCCUPIED Holy crap guys, we just uncovered that DHS is straight-up contracting former IDF soldiers as ICE agents and "bounty hunters" right here on US soil. Public records leaked show OVER 120 ex-IDF operatives embedded in ICE's Chicago office alone—out of just 2,000 agents reviewed. Their last names? All trace back to Israel. No other job history. Faces hidden? Yeah, because exposure would blow the lid off. And get this: Israel even has its OWN ICE office in Tel Aviv. That's not partnership—that's a foreign military running deportation ops on our streets, training masked goons to storm homes like it's Gaza checkpoints. This is the smoking gun: We're not a sovereign nation anymore. We're occupied territory, folks. Contracts prove it. Our "government" is handing the keys to Tel Aviv. Insane? You bet. Treasonous? Absolutely. SAVE THIS POST. SHARE BEFORE IT'S CENSORED. Who's with me to DEMAND answers? @TuckerCarlson @RealCandaceO @NickJFuentes @RepMTG @RepThomasMassie

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - November 28, 2025 at 10:23 AM

Saved - November 28, 2025 at 7:33 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I report that Pastor Rob McCoy launched a 100% unhinged hit-piece on Candace Owens, calling her “a witch,” “Jezebel spirit,” “Daughter of Satan,” and accusing her of being “possessed” for questioning Israel policy. The sermon vanished mid-stream from the church site, then the same on Apple Podcasts faced bot-driven rating floods. I see a pattern of intimidation—delete, scrub, and silence. Archive everything.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨SHOCKING: The SERMON That Literally Got DELETED IN REAL TIME While People Were Trying To EXPOSE IT😱 Pastor Rob McCoy (TPUSA darling & “God & Country” pastor) stood in his own pulpit and delivered a 100% unhinged hit-piece on Candace Owens, calling her: 🔹“A witch” 🔹“Jezebel spirit” 🔹“Daughter of Satan” 🔹Literally said she is “possessed” and “practicing witchcraft” for questioning Israel policy The second @realbaronpod started playing the clips live on his stream? → Sermon vanished from the church website MID-STREAM. Gone. 404. Memory-holed. Then @IanCarrollShow tried to play the same exact sermon on his Apple Podcasts channel? → Instant coordinated bot swarm nuked his ratings and reviews within minutes. This is the same Rob McCoy who: 🔸Gets TPUSA speaking gigs 🔸Sits on the board of TPUSA Faith 🔸Just happened to preach this demonic rant days after Charlie Kirk’s assassination They are using pastors as human shields to spiritually assassinate a black Christian woman who dares question AIPAC, endless wars, and the grift. When you have to delete sermons live, bot-attack podcasts, and scrub the internet the moment people hit “play”… You’re not serving God. You’re protecting something very, very dark. Archive everything. Screenshot everything. They can’t delete the truth once 10 million people see it.

@alleytopfiles - Alley Files

Explain… There’s no where safe for them in the world ?? Candace isn’t safe hummm July 27th 2025 sermon part 1 @RealCandaceO @TuckerCarlson @IanCarrollShow @realbaronpod @ProjectConstitu https://t.co/AigVcbGfw6

Video Transcript AI Summary

This transcript describes a discussion with Orthodox friends about Charlie inviting Tucker Carlson. It notes there is nowhere safe for them in the world, and they have an inclination to trust no one, yet Charlie remains patient, engaging in dialogue with Tucker and Candace Owens, while also texting with Orthodox rabbis. The speaker commends Charlie for his patience and dialogue. The speaker responds to an Orthodox brother who claimed Candace is far right and Ocasio-Cortez far left, and that they both hate Jews. The speaker says Candace and AOC appear to operate their influence by pathos and ethos, and apply very little logos. They use pathos and ethos to judge and condemn an entire race of people. This is not framed as a political polarization issue (far right or far left) but as mob rule by emotion and perceived legitimacy void of the pursuit of truth. The speaker asserts that this dynamic is a reason America, for now and hopefully more in the future, is a somewhat safe haven for Jews because it is a republic. A link to a video was provided to illustrate or support this point.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: This to my Orthodox friends, the ones who were struggling over Charlie inviting Tucker. And you have to consider, there's nowhere safe for them in the world. And they have an inclination to trust no one. And yet, in this dialogue, we went back and forth. I commend Charlie on his patience. He's he's remarkable. He can dialogue with Tucker and Candice, and and and be on a text stream with orthodox rabbis. He patient. He's gaining understanding. Dialogue. I responded to an orthodox brother who said, Candace is far right and Ocasio Cortez is far left, and they both hate Jews. And I responded, I said, Candace and AOC appear to operate their influence by pathos and ethos, and apply very little logos. They use pathos and ethos to judge and condemn an entire race of people. This is not far right or far left. It is mob rule by emotion and perceived legitimacy void of the pursuit of truth. This is why America, for now and I pray more so in the future, is a somewhat safe haven for Jews because we are a republic. I gave them a link to a video.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - November 27, 2025 at 9:28 PM

Saved - November 27, 2025 at 11:59 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

Yesterday, two National Guard members were critically injured near the White House; the suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national who entered the U.S. in 2021, drove from across the country to the scene. In Fairfax, VA on April 23, Jamal Wali, 36, another Afghan national, fired at officers after cursing the U.S.; he was fatally shot. Both cases raise questions about vetting and immigration policies from Obama and Biden eras. Trump deployed 500 more Guardsmen; calls for stronger border security follow.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 ALERT: Afghan National Involved in Fairfax Police Shooting Linked to Recent DC Incident Involving National Guard Members Yesterday, November 26, two National Guard members—Pfc. Andrew Wolfe, 24, and Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20—were critically injured in a shooting near the White House in Washington, DC. The suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national who entered the U.S. in 2021, reportedly drove from across the country before the incident. Both service members, who had just been sworn in less than 24 hours prior as part of enhanced security measures under President Trump, are receiving medical treatment. Looking back to April 23 in Fairfax, VA: A routine traffic stop escalated when Jamal Wali, 36, another Afghan national, expressed frustration and mentioned the Taliban before firing at officers. One bullet injured two officers in their arms, but they were treated and released. Wali was fatally shot in the exchange. Body camera footage captured the event, showing his anger toward the U.S. These incidents raise questions about vetting processes. Both individuals entered the U.S. under programs from the Obama and Biden administrations—Wali in 2014 as a translator, and Lakanwal through asylum pathways amid the Afghanistan withdrawal. Concerns have been voiced about border security and immigration policies that may have allowed unvetted entries. President Trump is addressing this by deploying 500 additional Guardsmen, but many are calling for stronger measures to secure the border. Share if you support accountability and safer policies!

Video Transcript AI Summary

Officer stops a driver who is armed and says, “I have a gun, and I'm armed.” The driver questions why he was called over. The Officer notes the caller’s inspection sticker expired. The Driver replies that there is no driving license and refuses to show identification, saying, “There’s no I don’t have a driving license.” The Driver tells the Officer to “Go back, sit in the fucking car, and leave,” and the Officer insists, “No? It doesn't work that way.” The Driver refuses to provide his name and, increasingly agitated, blasts about his difficulties, saying, “You are you're fucking killing me. Fucking people don't get a disability. I have kids and I have a lot of fucking bullshit things.” The Driver claims he cannot get a job or disability and has had his license taken because he cannot pay insurance, asking why the Officers are “fucking treating me this way.” The Officer asks for the registration to the vehicle; the Driver responds, “Nothing. Nothing.” The Officer confirms, “You got nothing?” The Driver continues to berate the Officers, calling them “fucking dumbass fucking people,” and asserts he cannot return to his country because of them, saying he started “fucking armed.” He introduces his memory of service, claiming, “I served… with American Spanish,” and asserts that the people who brought him to the country and the Officers are responsible for his plight, saying, “You brought me to this goddamn country, and I'm dying every fucking single day. And I have four children, and we wholly survive because you're a fucking racist people.” The Driver maintains he has nothing to show, and the Officers remain concerned about safety, with the Driver warning, “Don’t reach for anything, dude. Don’t talking about… I’m telling you don’t reach. I don’t give damn if you fucking do anything.” The Officer states, “Just wanna use the field. Tell us it’s gonna be restricted for $14.39. Sir, I stopped you for a lawful traffic stop.” The Driver retorts, “I I don't give a damn fuck. You lying.” The Driver reiterates that he served with special forces, lost his brother, and lost everything, insisting the Officers lied for twenty-five years. The Officer offers condolences, and the Driver responds, “No. You’re sorry to hear that? No. No. Don’t don't play that bullshit.” The Driver confirms he has no registration and asserts he was American by saying, “You are American. I give you my fucking what do you call that shit? Take it.” He notes his license was taken, claiming it was “for more fucking with fucking Taliban better than you,” and accuses “you people” of lying and playing games. The confrontation escalates as the Driver signals his companions, while the Officers prepare for action. The Driver proclaims he has four children and warns not to reach for a gun. The exchange ends with radio traffic announcing, “800 bravo shots fired.”

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Jesus Christ. Speaker 1: That was a heck of a stop, sir. I have a gun, and I'm I'm armed. I'll let you know. So why did you call me over there? Speaker 0: Your inspection sticker expired last. Speaker 1: Call Joe Biden or call Joe What's your driver's license? No. There's no I don't have a driving license. Speaker 0: Why not? Speaker 1: Go back, sit in the fucking car, and leave. No, sir. Speaker 0: No? It doesn't work that way. Okay. So go ahead. Speaker 1: Do whatever you wanna do. Speaker 0: Can I get your name? No. No? No. Speaker 1: You are you're fucking killing me. Fucking people don't get a disability. Fucking I have kids and I have a lot of fucking bullshit things. So why are you fucking treating me this way? Said 80. Said 80. Speaker 0: Can I get a supervisor to my location, please? Speaker 1: You fucking dumbass fucking people. You fucking Speaker 0: asshole. Majestic. Speaker 1: I can't even go back to my fucking country because of you fucking I started fucking armed. Time Car car anyone around them. Every time. Do you have Speaker 0: the registration to the vehicle? Speaker 1: Nothing. Nothing. Speaker 0: You got nothing? Nothing. Alright. Yeah. Speaker 1: And you don't wanna give me your name? Sir, why look. Look. Hey. I'm I died in when I was serving you with you liars, with you people, with American Spanish. I served Speaker 0: you as Speaker 1: well, sir. Yeah. So you you brought me to the you fucking people brought me to this goddamn country, and I'm dying every fucking single day. And I have four children, and we wholly survive because you're a fucking racist people. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 1: Yeah. Because I can't get a job. I can't get a disability, and and they took my fucking license because I'm not able to pay the insurance. So why are you fucking trying to kill me? Speaker 0: I'm not trying to kill you. Speaker 1: You are I'm already died. I don't give a Subject's damn armed, refusing to give ID. Don't reach for anything, dude. Don't talking about I'm telling you don't reach. I'm telling you don't reach. I don't give damn fuck. If you fucking do anything, don't do anything. Subject keeps reaching for his weapon. No. I'm not I'm I'm not reaching. Speaker 0: K. Just wanna use the field. Tell us it's gonna be restricted for $14.39. Sir, I stopped you for a lawful traffic. Stop. Speaker 1: I I don't give a damn fuck. You lying. Speaker 0: I'm not lying. No. You It's right there. Speaker 1: No. Today is So what what asking for is you to identify yourself. People. You lied for twenty five years. Speaker 0: Alright. Any bravo. Will you drift on that? Speaker 1: You brought me to this country. I served with special forces. Lost my own fucking brother. I lost my whole everything. Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Speaker 1: I have nothing. Speaker 0: I'm sorry to hear that. Speaker 1: No. You're sorry to hear that? No. No. Don't don't play that bullshit. Speaker 0: So you don't have a registration in the vehicle? Speaker 1: You know what? Listen here. You're American. Okay? Yes. Yes. You are American. I give you my fucking what do you call that shit? Take it. They took my driving license. They they took it away? Yeah. For more fucking with fucking Taliban better than you. I was concerned and a fucking dumbass fuck when I was concerned about Taliban. But in America, since 2014, I'm concerned about more about you people. Because you lie, because you play games, that's how I'm going deeper deeper deeper. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 1: Yeah. So these are my partners here. They're coming up. I don't want you to get rattled, but it's because you are reaching for your weapon. No. No. I'm not really sure. Hey. I watched you do it. I'm not I don't give a damn fuck. It brings as many people as you can. K. Go ahead. You're not listening. What I'm Speaker 0: I am listening to you. Speaker 1: I have four children. I have four children. Do do not reach your gun. Speaker 0: Yeah. Roger, if I slow down. Speaker 1: Hey. So Listen, American. This is take it. Take I take this with you. Okay? Speaker 0: So now you wanna give Speaker 1: me that? Speaker 0: Hey. Don't you reach me. No. Fuck. Fuck. 800 bravo shots fired. Hi.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - November 26, 2025 at 6:17 PM

Saved - November 26, 2025 at 11:08 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I attended a Turning Point USA Faith event hoping for a biblical lens, but I got 90 minutes of weaponized hate. The speaker branded Candace Owens as “evil” and “anti-Semitic” before the Bible, trash-talked Tucker Carlson, and labeled left-leaning people as “idiots” and “freaks” while the crowd cheered. He urged unquestioning loyalty to Israel, twisting Scripture to justify allegiance to a foreign power over America. Armed security loomed; it felt like intimidation.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨SHOCKING: A Young CHRISTIAN WOMAN Walked Into A TPUSA “Faith” Event Expecting Jesus —She Left HORRIFIED. Here’s What She Witnessed: “I went to a Turning Point USA Faith event tonight thinking I’d hear politics through a biblical lens. Instead, I got 90 minutes of weaponized hate from the stage, and it broke my heart.” The speaker opened by declaring Candace Owens “evil” and “anti-Semitic” before even opening the Bible. He spent the night trashing Tucker Carlson, calling left-leaning people “idiots,” “freaks,” and “losers” while the crowd cheered. He preached that Christians must support the modern nation-state of Israel no matter what it does, because “Jesus was Jewish,” and questioning anything is anti-Semitism. He twisted Scripture to justify unconditional political allegiance to a foreign government over America itself. Meanwhile, armed security (hand on gun) stood on stage and at every exit. The vibe wasn’t worship; it felt more like intimidation. She said: “I kept asking myself: Would Jesus call sinners ‘freaks’ and laugh? Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors. This wasn’t the Gospel; this was political indoctrination dressed in a cross.” These events are marketed as “Christian conservative training,” but this young woman saw a captive audience of teenagers being taught that hate is holy and blind loyalty to a political agenda is the same as loving God. Donors: Is THIS where you want your money going? Funding stages where Scripture is twisted to demonize fellow believers and demand allegiance to a foreign power above our own? If Turning Point Faith has become a machine that labels Bible-believing Christians “evil” for asking questions, it’s time to pull the plug. Young Christians deserve better. America deserves better. Jesus definitely deserves better. Tag your friends who give to TPUSA. Ask them: Are you okay with your donations paying for this? Credit: @SwordTruth /@sarah_luna_1111 FOLLOW Them!

Video Transcript AI Summary

I attended a TPUSA faith event expecting to learn about politics from a biblical perspective, but the experience did not meet those expectations. The speaker began by calling out Candace Owens as evil and antisemitic, stating that “what she's doing is evil,” which made me want to leave immediately. I stayed only because, upon entering, security checked me five times and armed men were stationed in front of me, with one armed man on stage. Inside the church, the speaker spoke repeatedly about Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, framing them as evil and antisemitic. He indirectly urged support for Israel by saying “Jesus was a Jew” and that “we wouldn’t have Christianity without Judaism,” among other claims. I disagree with the framing that Christians should support “this evil doing because these people are Jewish,” which I found to be wrong. The speaker also seemed to echo comments about Camille Owens and Charlie Cook, noting that Cook had started to question Israel in the weeks before his passing, and that Camille Owens was his best friend. The preaching itself did not feel like preaching; it was characterized by name-calling and a focus on the left, with terms like “left idiots” and “freaks.” I questioned whether this approach aligned with biblical teaching, recalling that Jesus “ate with sinners” and “prostitutes,” and worried that spreading hate through the stage and by the audience—especially teenagers—was shaping a future generation of Christians toward division. The event left me uneasy about the message being delivered, as it centered on denigrating those with political disagreements rather than focusing on shared faith. The speaker labeled the left as inferior and spent the majority of the time criticizing liberals, rather than addressing important Christian issues. By the end, I felt I hadn’t learned anything substantive. The discussion emphasized partisan conflict and broad generalizations about the left, rather than focusing on constructive biblical or political principles. In addition to the ideological focus, I noted the security environment with armed guards and an armed figure on stage, which contributed to an overall sense of unease. The speaker’s emphasis on opposing the left and on contentious topics like men in women’s sports and bathrooms framed as political talking points, rather than pressing concerns central to Christian discourse.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: So I went to a TPUSA faith event tonight, and I wanna talk about it. Thinking that I was going to enjoy myself and learn things because TPUSA is a obviously a conservative faith based foundation or so I thought. I thought I was gonna be informed about politics stemming like strictly from biblical principles and that's not my experience. So right off the bat, the speaker comes up and, like, before he even gets into preaching or talking about politics, he begins by calling out Candace Owens and saying that she is evil and anti Semitic and what she's doing is evil. I immediately wanted to leave. I didn't want to be there any longer listening to this nonsense because right off the bat I know that that's just not true. And the only reason I didn't leave is because on the way in, I basically got, like, security checked, like, five times because there was armed men, like, standing everywhere in front of me. They were very suspicious of me. Like, I don't know. There was also an armed man on stage, like, hand on his gun. Like, the security was everywhere. And I was like, I just don't wanna deal with it. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but it's it just didn't feel right. So I'm in this church, and I'm listening to this TPUSA, like, speaker go on and on about Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and how they're evil and antisemitic. And he basically indirectly sup is saying we should support Israel because Jesus was a Jew, and we wouldn't have Christianity without Judaism, blah blah blah. Obviously, I disagree with that. What they're doing in Israel is evil, and they're so corrupt. It's insane. And telling Christians that they should be supporting this evil doing because these people are Jewish, and if you don't, you're anti Semitic. Like, it's just it's wrong. And also, I don't think Charlie Cook would stand for that. We know as, like, the weeks before his passing, he was starting to call out Israel and question Israel, and Camille Owens was his best friend. Like, what? So then he goes on and on, and he starts preaching. But the way he was preaching, it wasn't really preaching. He was just literally calling, like, the left names. He called the left idiots. He called them freaks. He called them just it didn't feel right. And my thought process is, would Jesus be doing this? Is this biblical teaching? Like, you're calling people that we disagree with as Christians all these names in loser, idiot, freak. Really? Because last time I checked, Jesus ate with sinners. He ate with prostitutes. So you're spreading hate, literally, and that's not what God stands for. He's preaching to people whilst spreading hate, and these people are absorbing this information. These teenagers, these young people are absorbing this information, thinking that this is okay. This is a leader. This is someone we put on our stage teaching us this. This is a future generation of Christians. Do we really want to be more divided? Like, oh, we're just gonna hate on the left because we disagree with them. We're not gonna share the bible with them. We're not gonna, like, help them because we think that they're lost. We're just gonna call them losers and freaks and make fun of them and laugh it off. It was quite disgusting, and I'm not pleased at all. So, basically, I didn't learn a thing. He spent the entire time talking about liberals and how they're stupid and blah blah blah, and, like, how men shouldn't be in women's soccer rooms and women's sports, and I'm like, I'm thinking we have more important things to talk about as Christians in this nation than things that we see plastered all over online. Like, yeah, we we all know. We know that men shouldn't be in women's sports. We know that they shouldn't be in women's bathrooms. That's not the most important topic. Okay?

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 BOMBSHELL EXPOSÉ: Pastor Rob McCoy CAUGHT LYING About His Son's "Heroic" Actions After Charlie Kirk's Assassination!😡 In a fiery Sunday sermon, Pastor Rob McCoy painted a heroic picture of his 24-year-old son, Mikey McCoy—Charlie Kirk's personal chef, chief of staff, and supposed best friend who was right by his side at UVU on that fateful day. Rob claimed: "The minute Charlie was shot, he called me... 'Dad, Charlie's been shot in the neck. Please call every pastor and pray.' ... He had wits about him, he was just directing, he had blood all over him... Still there, phone in his hand, texting, talking." But here's the gut-wrenching TRUTH—we have crystal-clear VIDEO PROOF that shatters this fairy tale to pieces. Watch as Mikey stands just feet from Charlie at the edge of the tent when the shot rings out. Instead of rushing to help his "dying friend," Mikey slowly and casually turns his back on Charlie, walks away behind the tent, pulls out his phone, and makes a call. He strolls all the way past the road, far from the chaos, showing zero panic, zero urgency, zero care for Charlie bleeding out. No sprinting to aid. No blood on his clothes from trying to save a life. No leadership—just cold abandonment. Mikey, who spent the morning loyally filming everything by Charlie's side, suddenly ghosts the scene like a coward. Shock? Or something far more sinister? He walks away cool, calm, and collected... as if he KNEW the shot was coming. Pastor Rob's lies aren't just heartbreaking—they're a blatant cover-up for betrayal in the wake of Charlie Kirk's murder. Was Mikey complicit? Why ditch your best friend in his final moments for a phone call? This stinks of deep deception, and the McCoys owe America answers. Demand justice! SHARE this far and wide to expose the fraud —get this on every feed! Who's got the guts to grill Pastor Rob on camera? The truth about Charlie's death can't be buried under sermons.

Video Transcript AI Summary

The speakers recount the moments surrounding Charlie Kirk being shot and highlight the behavior of Mikey McCoy, Charlie Kelley’s chief of staff. The account begins with a father describing his son’s roles: Justin is the chief financial officer, and Mikey is the chief of staff. He recalls the instant Charlie was shot: “Charlie’s been shot in the neck. Please call every pastor and pray.” He notes that Charlie was directing at the time, with blood all over him. Speaker 1 focuses on Mikey’s actions during the incident. He notes that Mikey is still there, phone in hand, texting, talking, then putting the phone away. He points to the person Charlie is arguing with, Hunter Kozak, and emphasizes what the video shows about Mikey: he seems to see Charlie get hit and “simply walks away.” Mikey later reappears on the other side of the tent, not running but walking. The account questions whether Mikey might be on the phone, though it isn’t certain. Security guards are described as doing their part, while Mikey is shown “walking, like getting far away from everything.” The narrative suggests Mikey turned his back on the incident after it happened. Speaker 2 names Mikey McCoy, Charlie Kirk’s chief of staff and friend, describing what he did or did not do during the morning. The speaker asserts that Mikey “spent the whole morning dutifully and loyally by Charlie’s side filming everything,” but then “abandoned Charlie in the very instant Charlie was killed.” The key questions posed are whether Charlie was actually dead, whether he needed help, and whether Mikey rushed to aid him or instead got his camera out. The speaker concludes that, according to the account, “Mikey McCoy didn't care about Charlie Kirk at all and just left him behind.” In summary, the described sequence presents Mikey McCoy as being present with Charlie prior to the shooting, then engaging in texting and moving away, appearing on the far side of the tent, and ultimately turning his back on Charlie after the incident, with the claim that he abandoned him as Charlie passed. The recounting is reinforced by a second speaker who reiterates that Mikey did not assist Charlie and appeared to prioritize other actions over Charlie’s welfare.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: I'm looking at my son who's 24 years old. Justin is the chief CFO, chief financial officer and and Mikey is the chief of staff. And and I'm watching the minute Charlie was shot, called me, says, dad, Charlie's been shot in the neck. Please call every pastor and pray. I said, okay, son. He has wits about him, he was just directing. He had blood all over him, and he had blood all over him. He had blood all over him. Speaker 1: Mickey's still there, phone in his hand, texting, talking, then he puts his phone away. There's the guy that Charlie Charlie's arguing with. Hunter Kozak is his name. What you're about to see is the tragic moments, but also you gotta watch right where I've been showing you Mikey is to see exactly what he is doing. He seems to see Charlie get hit and simply walks away. You're gonna see him pop up on the other side of the tent in a second and, again, not running like everybody, just walking. This could be shock, but, again, you'd think there'd be some kind of panic and he'd be sprinting, but you're just seeing him walk away. Very weird. And it almost seems like maybe he's on the phone. Not a 100% sure. And then, of course, the security guards are doing his thing, and then they're showing Mikey just, you know, walking, like getting far away from everything. And then they're saying here, Mikey literally turns his back on Charlie since the incident incident Charlie passed. He has no idea what's happening to Charlie. Apparently, he could care less. Speaker 2: Mikey McCoy, Charlie's chief of staff and friend who spent the whole morning dutifully and loyally by Charlie's side filming everything, abandoned Charlie in the very instant Charlie was killed. Was Charlie actually dead? Did he need help? Did Mikey rush to his aid or get his phone camera out? Anything? No. Nothing. All of a sudden, Mikey McCoy didn't care about Charlie Kirk at all and just left him behind. What is going on?

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - November 23, 2025 at 7:33 PM

Saved - November 24, 2025 at 4:01 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I’m breaking down the four 990s (May 2025) and the story is wild but not fraudulent—it's aggressive restructuring. TPUSA sent $8.56M to America’s Turning Point, which now shows 24 employees and $5.3M payroll, with $7.84M spent on the Campus Victory Project. TPUSA headcount fell 33% while salaries rose; campus operations moved to a new entity. Turning Point Action grew to $27.2M; Endowment has $70M in stocks and gave $1.5M back. Donor transparency matters.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 BREAKING: The “missing” Turning Point 990s just dropped — all 4 filed in May 2025 — and the truth is wilder than the conspiracy theories.🧐 Caveat: This is according to Grok. I am not a accountant and don't purport to be one, this is just my preliminary findings. Here’s what the actual filings reveal (I read every page so you don’t have to): 🔴1.) The $8.56 million that TPUSA sent to “America’s Turning Point” (the shell everyone said vanished) DID NOT disappear. It went to a brand-new entity that suddenly reported 24 employees and $5.3 million in payroll after claiming ZERO employees for its entire existence. That entity spent $7.84 million on the “Campus Victory Project” — the exact same program that used to be inside TPUSA itself. 🔴2.) TPUSA’s headcount magically dropped 33% (700 → 458 employees) while group-wide salaries exploded from ~$21 million → $31 million. They simply moved the entire campus field team off the main 501(c)(3) books into a new legal entity to make TPUSA look leaner and cleaner to donors. 🔴3.) Turning Point Action (the 501(c)(4) Tyler Bowyer runs) tripled overnight from $10.7 million → $27.2 million revenue in an election year and is now bigger than the flagship charity. 🔴4.) The Endowment is sitting on $70 million in stocks and threw $1.5 million back to TPUSA. Business as usual. Bottom line: No phantom paychecks. No money “stolen.” But a deliberate, aggressive restructuring to hide payroll and headcount from donors by spinning campus operations into a new entity that had never reported a single employee before 2024. It’s not fraud… it’s financial cosmetology on steroids. This is exactly the kind of opaque shell-company shuffle that made Charlie Kirk demand a DOGE-style audit 8 days before he was murdered — and exactly why Tyler Bowyer went on X telling everyone “nothing to see here, just read the 990s” while knowing three of the four weren’t public yet. The filings are now public. The money is accounted for. But the donor deception is blatant. Full 990s (all four): will be linked in the comments below. Transparency matters. Charlie deserved better than creative accounting. Read them yourself and decide.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

Full 990s (all four): • Turning Point USA: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/800835023 • America’s Turning Point: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/814294120 • Turning Point Action: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/464331510 • Turning Point Endowment: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/821225311

Turning Point Usa Inc - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica Since 2013, the IRS has released data culled from millions of nonprofit tax filings. Use this database to find organizations and see details like their executive compensation, revenue and expenses, as well as download tax filings going back as far as 2001. projects.propublica.org

Americas Turning Point Inc - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica Since 2013, the IRS has released data culled from millions of nonprofit tax filings. Use this database to find organizations and see details like their executive compensation, revenue and expenses, as well as download tax filings going back as far as 2001. projects.propublica.org

Turning Point Action Inc - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica Since 2013, the IRS has released data culled from millions of nonprofit tax filings. Use this database to find organizations and see details like their executive compensation, revenue and expenses, as well as download tax filings going back as far as 2001. projects.propublica.org

Turning Point Endowment Inc - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica Since 2013, the IRS has released data culled from millions of nonprofit tax filings. Use this database to find organizations and see details like their executive compensation, revenue and expenses, as well as download tax filings going back as far as 2001. projects.propublica.org

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

@BasedSamParker @RealCandaceO @realbaronpod @IanCarrollShow @FinanceWolves @DDGotAPodcast @iamcoachcolin me too brother

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - November 23, 2025 at 7:33 PM

Saved - November 24, 2025 at 6:53 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

I read the four May 2025 filings and here's what I found: TPUSA sent $8.56M to a new entity that soon claimed 24 employees and $5.3M payroll, while $7.84M funded the Campus Victory Project—the same program once inside TPUSA. TPUSA headcount dropped 33% as salaries rose to $31M. Turning Point Action grew from $10.7M to $27.2M revenue. The Endowment sits on $70M in stocks. Not fraud, but aggressive restructuring to hide payroll from donors—financial cosmetology.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - November 14, 2025 at 11:53 PM

Saved - November 15, 2025 at 6:24 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

I'm Charles McClintock Wilson, a photographer who shot clear images of TPUSA's Utah Valley event, including the crowd, the gunshot, and Kirk’s final moments. I withheld the photos out of respect, but I’m ready to share them for justice. Two months on, the FBI, police, and TPUSA have not approached me about the footage, despite security delays and conflicting accounts. A 2 a.m. call from Aubrey Laitsch, TPUSA PR, probed my presence and then ghosted me. I demand transparency.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨BOMBSHELL: Cameraman Says TPUSA GHOST Him After Odd 2am Phone Call PROBING If He Had Capturing CHARLIE KIRK'S ASSASSINATION—What's the COVER-UP? In the chaotic aftermath of Charlie Kirk's assassination on September 11, 2025, at the Turning Point USA event in Utah Valley University, one man's high-resolution lens could hold the key to unraveling the truth—yet authorities and TPUSA have left him in the dark. Charles McClintock Wilson, a professional photographer armed with telephoto lenses, captured crystal-clear images of the crowd, the single gunshot he heard (contrasting reports of two), and Kirk's final moments behind the tent. Out of respect for Kirk's family, Wilson withheld these sensitive photos, including potential last images of the leader alive, but stands ready to share them for justice. Astonishingly, nearly two months later, neither the FBI, local police, nor TPUSA has sought his evidence—despite the day's glaring irregularities, from security's delayed response to conflicting witness accounts. Adding to the enigma: a 2 a.m. call the night of Charlie's death from a woman named Aubrey Laitsch, claiming to be TPUSA's PR Manager, who probed Wilson's presence at the event before abruptly ghosting him, with no follow-up in regard to his footage. Why bury this lead in a case that demands transparency? Demand answers—tag @TPUSA @RealCandaceO now, and share if you won't let Kirk's legacy fade into unanswered shadows Shoutout to @brandiandbillie for this awesome interview. Be sure to FOLLOW them and check out the FULL Video on their YT channel. I'll drop the link down below in the comments

Video Transcript AI Summary

Charles Macklintok Wilson, a photographer, was covering the day Charlie Kirk was assassinated. The group sought his firsthand experience of that day. Wilson described the moment the shot occurred as happening quickly; security guards jumped in to aid Charlie Kirk, and people began to run. Wilson recalled that many believed the noise was fireworks at first. When asked how many gunshots he heard, Wilson said, “Me personally, I heard one gunshot.” He described his initial reaction: he saw Charlie Kirk, went down, and took photos of people helping him. He mentioned he released one photo, known as the last photo of a Charlie Kirk alive, and stated he had other photos from the moment of the shooting but did not release them. He explained he did have photos of Charlie Kirk behind the tent and of the moment after the bullet struck, but he no longer has those photos, saying he didn’t want his kids to see them. Wilson considered whether the photos could help with the investigation, noting that if Charlie Kirk’s people reached out to him, he would respond. He recounted that at around 2 a.m. on the day, someone from Charlie Kirk’s circle reached out to EVU, and they told him to contact Turning Point USA. He described a later exchange with Turning Point USA’s team: a female staff member contacted him regarding press credentials, asking if he could attend the event. The question raised was why Turning Point USA did not reach out directly sooner, given the availability of clear crowd photos. The conversation included a specific exchange that appears in the transcript: someone from Turning Point USA’s team, identified as Aubrey Laitsch (Aubrey Laitsch, PR manager for TPUSA), sent a message: “Hi, Charles. My name is Aubrey Laitsch, and I am the PR manager for TPUSA. Did you happen to go to the event at UVU today? It was mentioned to me that you wanted to come as press.” Wilson confirmed he was at the event and expressed sorrow over Charlie Kirk’s death, stating, “Such an awful day.” He notes that Aubrey did not respond to his reply. Overall, Wilson’s account centers on: the rapid shooting incident, the immediate reaction of security and bystanders, his personal photographic record (including the last photo alive) and his decision not to release certain photos out of consideration for the family, the potential use of the photos in an investigation, and a later outreach from Turning Point USA staff regarding press credentials, including the non-response from Aubrey Laitsch.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: His name is Charles Macklintok Wilson, and he was working as a photographer on the day that Charlie Kirk was assassinated. Speaker 1: We just wanted to get this guy's firsthand experience of that day. Speaker 2: So the shot happened so fast, like, most people reacted when when we when they saw we saw security guards jumping to aid Charlie Kirk. And then, like, that's when everybody started running. Because we saw my wife, I thought we all thought it was just fireworks or something like that, like Mhmm. Speaker 1: And that would say my next question. So a lot of people say that they heard two gunshots. Speaker 2: Me personally, I heard one gunshot. Speaker 1: You heard one? One shot. And what was like your initial reaction when you heard it? Like, did you duck? Did you run? Speaker 2: So when I saw Charlie Kirk, I went down and I took a photo of his people, like, taking I didn't post this photo. I have photos of, like, every I I I I released one photo of when they were which is known, which I'm not proud of it, and I'm making clear of that. It's known as the last photo of a Charlie Kirk alive. Well, I mean, obviously, there's phone videos and stuff like that, but, like, when they were taken. But also I took other photos when, but I didn't release those photos just for because it's just Speaker 1: Do you have photos of him behind the tent when he was Speaker 2: I had them. So I had those photos when he got shot, but not like when like, when the bullet hit him or when he's down. Speaker 1: You have photos of that? Speaker 2: I had them. So, I don't have them anymore. Why? Well, because I'm like, I'm thinking about the family. I didn't want his kids to see those photos. Speaker 1: But what if it helps with the investigation? Speaker 2: The photos? Yeah. I mean, if they come to me and like, look, Charlie Kirk's people, they reach out to me. Speaker 1: Do you think it's weird that they haven't reached out to you? Speaker 2: Well, I think Speaker 1: When you have such clear photos of the entire crowd? Speaker 2: I was telling my wife, well, most likely, they're gonna reach out to me and then like at 2AM in the morning that day, well, what's the next day? 2AM. Yeah. Well, whatever. But anyway, everybody know what I mean. But like at 2AM, like 2AM, 1AM or something, Charlie Kirk, one of the Charlie Kirk people, one of his assistant, I was reaching out to EVU and they they reached out to me and they're like, oh, wait. You need to reach out to the Turning Point USA people. Speaker 0: Wait. Turning Point did reach out? Speaker 2: Yes. Did you were just asking me, hey, Charles Charles, whatever, like, were you because I heard you were looking for, like, press credential, you know, or just wanna make sure that you got online. Speaker 0: Wait. She? It's a girl? Speaker 2: It's a girl. Yeah. That's right. She's one of the she's one of, one of the Do you Speaker 1: know her name? Speaker 2: I do not her I don't remember her name though. Speaker 0: Is and so this is 2AM. Charlie's No. Still Speaker 2: Charlie's no. That was then no. That was on September 11. If you wanna be if you wanna be smart about it, whatever. Yeah. So September 11, at 2AM, somebody from Charlie Kirk Circle, like, from this team, I think it was one of the top one, the top staff, and she was asking about because she found out that I was looking that I was trying to get some press credentials for me for me to be at the event. And she's like, oh, you just wanna make sure that you got wanna make sure is that okay for checking that out of text? Speaker 0: Of course. Yeah. Speaker 2: No. Exactly what you said though. Speaker 1: Of course. That's actually better than probably. Speaker 2: Let me see if I have it. Speaker 1: Hi, Charles. My name is Aubrey Laitsch, l a I t s Leish? C h, and I am the PR manager for TPUSA. Did you happen to go to the event at UVU today? It was mentioned to me that you wanted to come as press. And you said, hey, Aubrey, yes, I was there today. I'm so sorry about Charlie. Such an awful day. And she did not respond. Speaker 2: She did not respond. So that's that that's that sort of gaffe, like from the whole Charlie, from the whole Turning Point Turning Point USA thing. Speaker 1: Wow. Interesting she didn't respond.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

Camera guy 1 Anyone know him?

@SmokeyMonjes13 - Smokey Monjes

@ProjectConstitu @gotrice2024 @zelina2024

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - November 14, 2025 at 11:26 AM

Saved - November 14, 2025 at 2:40 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I recount that the official narrative pins the Las Vegas massacre on Stephen Paddock, with over 1,000 rounds fired from Mandalay Bay, 64 dead initially, and a motive still undetermined. Eyewitnesses spoke of shots from multiple directions, including from above. A new video angle allegedly shows muzzle flashes from a helicopter over the crowd, challenging the lone-gunman theory and urging independent scrutiny of who ordered the aircraft and why.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨BOMBSHELL: New Video Emerges ShowingMUZZLE FLASH FROM HELICOPTER Overhead During the LAS VEGAS SHOOTING That Claimed 60 Lives and Injured 413 Others On October 1, 2017, the official narrative states that 64-year-old Stephen Paddock unleashed horror from his 32nd-floor suite at the Mandalay Bay hotel, firing over 1,000 rounds into the crowd at the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip. Sixty individuals perished, at least 413 were wounded by gunfire, and the ensuing chaos elevated the total injured to approximately 867. An hour later, Paddock was discovered deceased in his room from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. To this day, his motive remains officially undetermined. Yet, profound inconsistencies have long shadowed this account—discrepancies echoed in the harrowing testimonies of survivors. Eyewitnesses described gunfire erupting from multiple directions, including bursts that seemed to rain from above. Reports of helicopters circling ominously over the venue fueled early suspicions of coordinated involvement beyond a lone gunman. For years, these claims were dismissed as chaos-induced confusion, lacking irrefutable visual proof. That changes today. A newly surfaced video angle, captured from a vantage point amid the pandemonium, appears to show unmistakable muzzle flashes emanating from a helicopter hovering directly above the terrified concertgoers. The rhythmic bursts align precisely with the onslaught's most lethal volleys, casting grave doubt on the isolated-shooter theory and suggesting a far more orchestrated operation. This footage demands immediate scrutiny from independent investigators. Was the Mandalay Bay perch merely a diversion? Who piloted that aircraft, and under whose orders? Share this widely—truth cannot be suppressed when the evidence illuminates the shadows.

@ProjectConstitu — Project Constitution

Posted - November 3, 2025 at 3:06 PM

Saved - November 4, 2025 at 9:06 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

I’m sharing exclusive footage of the suspect van—the tailgate drops seconds after gunfire. Zoom in: a glowing light source inside through the side window. My earlier video showed the bullet’s trajectory straight from that van, so I claim the kill shot came from there. I say an assassination device is hidden in the van, remote-triggered, with an outside spotter using an infrared laser and a distant handler. I allege Mossad fingerprints. Watch and share before they scrub it.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Van's Hidden Laser Spotter & Glowing Gadget CAUGHT on Cam—THE SHOT CAME FROM THERE! Mossad Fingerprints?😱 Just Dropped: Footage of the SUSPECT VAN—tailgate DROPPING seconds after the gunfire. Zoom in: Glowing light source INSIDE through the side window. 😱 Combined with my earlier vid showing the BULLET trajectory STRAIGHT from that van? CASE CLOSED—the kill shot CAME FROM THERE. We now KNOW: Assassination device hidden in van, remote-triggered. Spotter outside with INFRARED LASER? Or handler pulling strings from afar? ISRAEL'S FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER THIS MOSSAD-STYLE HIT. Who's REALLY behind it? Watch & SHARE before they scrub it! 👇 Tag: @RealCandaceO

Video Transcript AI Summary

Speaker 0 says what appears to be the mullet. He slowed it down because it is so fast. He adds that the trajectory aligns with Charlie in the final dot or mark that we see.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: What appears to be to me, the mullet. Obviously, I slowed it down because it is so fast. Who knows? But the trajectory does align with Charlie in the final dot or mark that we see right there.

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨MUST WATCH: 3 NEW FRAMES Of Video Show Shot Came from BEHIND & TO THE RIGHT Of Charlie – FBI's Jig is UP! Watch this: The projectile is captured in three distinct frames, revealing a trajectory originating from Charlie's right side – slightly behind him. This aligns precisely with a potential shot from a drone or sniper position in the far corner near the BA Building. For months, the FBI has insisted Tyler Robinson fired the fatal shot from the front, atop the Losee Building, using a .30-06 round. But explosive new analysis of raw footage tells a different story. The math doesn't lie. The physics don't lie. Why does the FBI persist with a story contradicted by the evidence? Tyler is not the shooter. Drop the charges. NOW. Full breakdown in the video below. Share if you demand transparency. Tag @RealCandaceO

Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker notes that what appears to be a mullet, slowed down because it is very fast. They acknowledge uncertainty but say the trajectory aligns with Charlie in the final dot or mark just before he gets hit. They also observe that the trunk of the car went down immediately.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

@ProjectConstitu - Project Constitution

🚨LIVE: New Information On SHOOTER IN THE VAN THEORY Discovered -MASSIVE BREAK In The CASE https://t.co/QuOTADjDpq