TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

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.

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.

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.

Aladdin and another participant discuss a string of controversial claims and conspiracy theories centered around Candace Owens and her husband, interwoven with personal updates and on-the-ground reporting plans. Aladdin introduces the topic by noting a disagreement with Zanny and invites Candace to continue, while also acknowledging support for a post in the nest. The conversation then moves to Candace Owens and her husband, described as a “MI5 asset” (a claim linked to his alleged background and funding). Speaker 1 identifies himself as a former intelligence officer who is currently in Ukraine, documenting the war to provide factual on-the-ground reporting and planning to visit Israel, Palestine, and Iraq to document events. He mentions a GoFundMe-style pin post on his profile for donations to his journey and stresses his aim to deliver factual reporting without spin. The discussion shifts to Candace Owens, whom Speaker 1 calls an “absolute fraud.” He cites “multiple indications back in 2022” related to Owens’s husband and references a firm he allegedly worked with, comparing it to a Wall Street-like operation in England. Specific firms mentioned include Parley or Glorify, and Avenger Capital Fund, suggesting that Owens’s husband is heavily funded by Jewish firms. When Owens speaks publicly, Speaker 1 argues, it appears to be designed to reveal a hidden network, prompting Aladdin to suggest peeling back layers of her narrative. The consensus among the participants is that Owens has become a prominent conspiracy disseminator who has shifted focus over time. The conversation traces Owens’s move from reporting about Charlies Kirk’s personal guard to broader conspiracies, expressing skepticism about the authenticity of texts Owens released between herself and Charlie Kirk. They describe those messages as not proving anything substantial about an assassination plot, though they debate their authenticity. The group notes Owens’s pattern of jumping between conspiracies without credible evidence, labeling some of her content as vile. Speaker 1 reveals that he knows Owens’s husband and alleges their marriage was arranged for clout, comparing the dynamic to a modern version of a high-profile “arranged marriage.” The discussion turns personal as Speaker 1, who grew up in Iraq, shares a harsh view toward Palestinians, calling them “parasites” and characterizing Palestinian behavior as spreading “cancer with their victimhood.” This remark is cited as part of the broader atmosphere of inflammatory rhetoric surrounding Owens and related narratives. Despite expressions of support for America, Speaker 1 emphasizes his Ukraine mission and reiterates his invitation for donations to fund his reporting. Toward the end, the group veers into light banter about a coin-toss game, humorously referencing heads for soap and tails for a lampshade, then moving through a quick aside about quarters and college games before returning to the ongoing discussion.

The speaker asserts that Erica Kirk is not a grieving widow but a psychopath, contending there was a plan to hijack Charlie Kirk’s organization and that Erica was part of it. They claim Erica’s actions are highly suspicious: she delivers multiple speeches and participates in hours-long interviews while on a book tour, all while supposedly grieving, and they question where Charlie and Erica’s children are given she appears to be living it up on stage with fireworks. They allege she and Charlie did multiple interviews together discussing family roles and that the mother’s role in the home was vital, yet she suddenly becomes a CEO and nonstop public figure “overnight,” contradicting prior statements about Erica’s primary role at home. The speaker calls this a test of intelligence and dismisses the possibility of genuine intent. A central sign cited is Ben Shapiro’s appearance as the opening speaker at Amfest, despite not being on Charlie’s published list of Amfest speakers. The speaker notes that Shapiro speaks after Erica and uses the platform to bash Charlie’s close friends, including Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, accusing Shapiro of hostility and implying ulterior motives. They mention Shapiro’s last podcast with Carlson involved controversial questions about a country, and they reference Fox News and other media figures as complicit, alleging they’re paid off by that country and are “singing along.” The speaker highlights that Turning Point USA raised $100,000,000 and frames the organization as deceptive, arguing that people are being fooled and should wake up. They urge warning peers—siblings, cousins, friends—about Turning Point at colleges and high schools, suggesting people should withdraw support and avoid recruitment. The claim is made that Erica Kirk’s ex-boyfriend, Cabot Phillips, now speaks on college visits on behalf of Charlie, despite Erica claiming she had dated nobody for five years before Charlie. Photos allegedly show Erica with Cabot on dates, and Cabot is described as suddenly joining Turning Point USA’s “debate me” movement. Overall, the speaker contends that Turning Point USA has been hijacked, that Erica Kirk and Charlie Kirk are involved in a calculated scheme, and that the leadership has been replaced or compromised, including the “killing” of their CEO. They urge people to stop supporting the organization and to inform others who might be recruited by it, insisting that common sense should prevail.

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.

The speaker argues that the event, recorded from multiple angles and analyzed frame by frame, obviously happened. They express anticipation for a future “goalpost shift,” but instead expect others to agree with each other and lie, claiming various parties—CBS, Fox News, the media, reporters, the video—are lying, while insisting the event is real and that the speaker and others are vindicated. They mention emailing Donald Trump, noting they have never talked to him. The speaker then reads comments about the incident, referencing a claim that “she did hit him” and that this is part of the cycle, with the speaker implying some groups lack sympathy for the person involved. They conclude by noting that “she was peaceful.”

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.

An individual believes Caldwell is a person of integrity and intelligence who is committed to the country, but is being attacked by people who have a track record of "destroying America." The tactic is to get a headline out there, call someone a "naughty word," or say they are "anti-country" or "radical." The hope is that someone will hand this to Trump and try to trick him into thinking he's stupid. The speaker says this is actual disinformation and asks what publications and people are involved in this campaign of lies. The "big story" going around on both individuals is from Jewish Insider, which is running headlines against people and attacking them by stripping the context.

The speaker recounts a recent real-life confrontation with Erica Kirk at church following Charlie’s death, describing her behavior as performative both in person and on TV. They assert that Kirk’s appearance in the front row with her entourage, arriving late and dabbing her eyes when she returns from communion, is not for security reasons and that the church layout would actually allow only about 5% of the congregation to see her from a closer exit, making the front-row spectacle unnecessary and theatrical. They question whose idea it was to pursue a media tour, suggesting that the ongoing coverage has done nothing but confirm to those who doubted Kirk that she was not genuine. The speaker claims that conservative leaders who defend Kirk have leveraged Charlie’s death, turning his public death—described as a spectacle seen by thousands—into their own opportunity to promote their brands, podcasts, and social media. They also criticize those who are not famous but defend Erica, referencing a recent appearance on a show where she labeled the situation a “sickness of the mind.” The speaker condemns what they label as gaslighting tactics used by control-based groups, cults, and fundamentalist religions, arguing that such groups undermine questioning of authority and the prevailing narrative. According to the speaker, these tactics aim to undermine the audience’s sanity, minds, and their relationships with Jesus. They insist that some individuals recognize these dynamics and describe them as tactics of manipulation, calling them disgusting. The overall plea is for truth and a reaffirmation of faith, asserting a need for God in order to discern and uphold the truth in the face of perceived manipulation.

Speaker 0 describes Candace Owens with highly inflammatory language, calling her an evil scumbag and a degenerate cunt. He accuses her of burning everything down and gloating while she does it, and claims she has security, though not the same level as others. He asserts that she lies about security and that her actions harm others, while conservatives who criticize her lack “balls” to call her out. He acknowledges that others have begun messaging him in support of criticizing Owens, but he dismisses credit for any such actions he didn’t claim. Speaker 0 asserts that Owens is hypocritical and hypocritically claims she loves Charlie Kirk while allegedly destroying what he built. He states he has bullets fired at his property and has to live in the middle of nowhere, with strangers approaching his Maryland home and residents being beaten when attempting to live there. He contends that Owens does not live the way she portrays, and that she is “burning everything down” and is evil. He claims the conservative movement is fractured and suggests Republicans are on track to lose the midterms, asserting that they were trending in a different direction until Charlie Kirk was murdered, calling it “the most effective political assassination in history.” Speaker 0 further asserts that Owens has turned Turning Point into “the perpetrators of the crime that was against them” and says he is not paid by any of these groups, has no special ties to Turning Point USA, and was not invited to their event. He contends that he does not want to participate with them and feels that conservative media are cowardly for not standing up to Owens. He mentions Megyn Kelly, appreciating her kind words but calling the situation pathetic bullshit. He emphasizes that no one is paying him, there is no Russia or Israel involvement, and he is simply risking his life by speaking out. Speaker 0 reiterates his frustration at Owens being placed in a thumbnail on her piece and calls her a “fucking cunt.” He insists that Owens benefited from the situation, and that she “killed Charlie” with her actions, claiming, “No one benefited more than her.” The exchange includes Speaker 1 confirming disbelief that Owens included him in the thumbnail and echoing the sentiment that she didn’t fly or act consistently with her claimed security.

The speaker states they cared about the server, the network, and their family first, including their partner, Shay. The speaker accuses someone of staying up all night to slander them and acting like a psychopath while pretending to be a traditional wife and mother. The speaker claims this person was going after their girlfriend, who hates them. The speaker then says they will show viewers that they still have their Twitter account when the video was made.

Speaker asserts 'Candace ain't lying, guys. I know it for a fact.' They warn against attacking anyone who asks questions and labeling them conspiracy theorists, noting those questions are often raised by 'typically conspiracy theorists.' They claim 'these narratives they're spinning out... don't make any sense' and that 'None of us really know. Like, if you're actually believing what these people are telling us, you're cooked.' They describe a contradiction: 'look at the wall that is purple... it's purple' and 'Look closer. It's yellow.' They ask, 'What are you talking about?' and argue the way to honor Charlie is by figuring out 'who the hell killed him and why and how.' They state 'There is absolutely something going on in that organization' before and after the assassination and that 'they do not want us to know.' To honor Charlie, 'we fight to figure out what the hell it is they don't want us to know.'

Speaker 0 says he went and hassled asked straightforward questions to Ted Cruz, describing Cruz as a sitting senator who was “serving for Israel by his own description,” and notes he isn’t targeting Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) because she’s “the most sincere.” He questions why not go after Cruz. Speaker 1 recalls being a friend of MTG; she spoke at his conference, then “the day after, she pretended like she didn't know me,” describing a history that began in 2022. He explains views evolve as people interact with reality and as the reality of self changes, adding that now “everyone agrees with me,” and he would forgive hostility. He says he doesn’t know what MTG’s new views are, noting she’s come around on Israel “this year,” whereas he has spoken on the issue for ten years. He characterizes the past as “ BS” and claims he was treated as if he didn’t exist, canceled for ten years for discussing these topics, particularly during a time of intense censorship. Speaker 1 mentions MTG fired one of his staffers because someone found out a groiper was working in her office, and that person’s life was ruined; MTG allegedly knew exactly what the conference was, yet she pretended not to. He says the issue isn’t personal with MTG, but argues the past disagreement was because she was “on the other team.” Speaker 0 counters that many people were on different sides in the past and suggests the question is bigger than themselves, aiming to restore America for future generations. Speaker 0 adds a personal note: if Dave Rubin called to apologize for calling him “Hitler,” he would consider it meaningful, and he sees legitimate questions to consider. He emphasizes sincerity as central, stating he believes sincerity shows when someone’s heart is pure, and that Joe Kent appeared sincere despite not agreeing on everything, which led Speaker 0 to think Kent was a good person. However, Speaker 0 says Kent was later discredited as being a CIA officer (or contractor), which contradicted their impression, and he recalls showing each other a badge during a mutual suspicion moment. Speaker 1 recalls being disavowed by MTG for his views on Israel and criticized for talking about white people and Christianity, and notes that he worked with Blumenthal on an article while Speaker 0 had called him on the phone. Speaker 0 reflects that the exchange felt “inside baseball” and insists he was seeking a sincere politician, someone brave, regardless of full agreement. He cites Joe Kent as an example of sincerity despite disagreements, and recounts being surprised by Speaker 1’s later revelation that Kent’s CIA association changed his view of Kent.

Speaker 0 outlines a strongly negative portrayal of Mitch Snow, claiming “maybe one of the most horrific, appalling human beings” the speaker has encountered. The speaker asserts a record of “violence against women in his record, kidnapping, abuse, fraud,” and states, “Oh, I have the proof. I have it all. I have all the documents.” The speaker emphasizes a hardline stance on abuse, noting that “we’re fans of Candace,” and that both they and JD have “very staunch anti abuse against women and children stances.” The speaker declares, “I don’t care who you are. If you platform and raise a $130,000 for someone who has a visceral history of abuse against women that’s gonna blow your guys’ mind, I’m not gonna allow that to happen.” The speaker continues that the claims about Snow are “a thousand times worse than any of you guys could have ever imagined” and states that the “stolen dollar, the Fort Huachaca” story will be debunked, though adds that this particular matter “is nothing to this story.” The speaker reports having talked to all of the victims, to Snow’s entire family, and to Snow’s children, emphasizing that Snow’s own son—described as an army veteran—“will be coming out and speaking publicly with us to explain to you how his father what a con artist his father is.” There is a commitment to a forthcoming exposure, with the speaker saying, “It is insane who this man really is. That is coming Friday.” The speaker expresses emotional fatigue from listening to victims and conducting investigations, stating they will bring “every document, all the domestic filing files, all the court all the court documents, all the military documents.” The speaker says, “We’ve got it all.” The speaker then questions whether Candace knows about Snow, saying, “If Candace knew this about this guy and decided to still platform him, I’m gonna be horrified. I’m gonna be absolutely horrified if she did this knowingly.” The claim is reiterated that Snow is “a con artist.” The speaker notes that they have not yet addressed “the debunking the four Huachaka story,” but promises to do so “very easily, by the way.” The segment ends with the speaker reiterating the emotional impact of conversations with Snow’s family and the testimony about a “litany of women that have been abused,” emphasizing that the numbers are more than a few—“Not one, not two, not three, not four.”

The transcript centers on a long-form discussion of the Epstein case, the alleged “deep state,” FOIA operations, and political maneuvering around Trump, with frequent calls to aggressively release and pursue Epstein-related documents and other investigations. The speakers assert that the FOIA department is being used to shield deep-state ties and that many federal offices are filled with anti-Trump figures who have prevented full disclosure. - Epstein files and the role of the deep state - The speakers claim the Epstein files are being selectively redacted by FOIA departments to conceal deep-state connections. They state that FOIA personnel are controlled by deep-state actors and that Epstein’s case involves a “fleet of aircraft” and operations linked to major power centers. They argue Epstein’s activities connect to money laundering, information laundering, and a broader set of deep-state assets and operations. - They propose a remedy: appoint Tom Fitton as special counsel on the Epstein files, arguing he “knows how FOIA really works,” understands key personnel, and has litigated Epstein-related cases for years. They assert this would restore public confidence and expedite the exposure of Democratic ties and other actors alleged to be involved. - They advocate for Trump to have executive-privilege-style powers to declassify and release Epstein materials, suggesting a broad interpretation of “Epstein file law” that would allow him to disclose or appoint an ombudsman with power to release materials at will. They emphasize the need to disclose Democratic ties and to hold press conferences when releasing documents, avoiding the use of fake documents or videos. - Specific figures and institutions named - Kash Patel is cited as saying there are “open files on a dozen plus coconspirators” and as someone who has noted alleged misdirections by those handling Epstein-related material. - Kyle Serafin and Phil Kennedy are mentioned as documenting a person at the FBI capacity who is “an anti-Trump advocate,” implying that deep-state appointments control FOIA and related processes. - Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss replacing FOIA and related personnel who are deeply implicated; they specifically name Tom Fitton as the ideal choice and entertain other high-profile figures like Tulsi Gabbard as potential custodians of the Epstein disclosures. - Tulsi Gabbard is described as being in charge of broader investigations tied to the Epstein files and other major political issues (elections, COVID-19, etc.). They also reference “Epstein files” intersecting with other investigations they attribute to the deep state. - Epstein, Maxwell, and allied networks - Epstein is described as deeply embedded with Western intelligence agencies (French, Israeli, UK, and US) and tied to Robert Maxwell, with Maxwell’s daughter linked to Epstein. Epstein is portrayed as having been “recruited by Bill Barr” and as a central figure in a long-running intelligence and blackmail operation. - The discussion links Epstein to Leslie Wexner (Victoria’s Secret founder) and a French talent agency, portraying these connections as part of a large, interconnected network involved in money laundering, arms trafficking, blackmail, and intelligence work. - The speakers insist that Epstein’s activities extended to the late 1990s and beyond, including alleged involvement in “Shutters” in Santa Monica and other high-profile cases, with a consistent pattern of using underage girls and blackmail to exert influence. - They emphasize a broader motive: exposing the “deep state” to vindicate Trump and indict deep-state actors who allegedly engaged in illicit operations, including foreign intelligence services and Western governments. - The broader political frame and potential indictments - The Epstein files are presented as a potential hinge for indicting a wide array of figures across political lines, including references to Comey, Mueller, Hillary Clinton-era actors, and other “rogue actors” who allegedly hindered investigations. - The conversation ties Epstein to broader themes: the 2020 election, COVID policies, and anti-Trump actions by the “deep state.” They contend that the Epstein disclosures could demonstrate the depth of state interference in political processes and media, making Democrats and their institutions targets of accountability. - They argue the Epstien files could show criminal activity by multiple national actors, including Israeli, UK, and French components, and could reveal coordinated efforts to derail Trump and manipulate media narratives. - The Candace Owens angle and related criticisms - A substantial portion of the dialogue critiques Candace Owens, alleging she is running a “CIA-style” operation that distracts from the true conspiracy around the deep state and Tarantifa, and that she manipulates narratives related to Tyler Robinson and Charlie Kirk. - They accuse Owens of shifting narratives, fabricating alibis, and promoting disinformation, calling her a “SIOP” (psychological operation) and alleging her behind-the-scenes connections to MI6 or other international actors through her husband (George Farmer) and other associates. - They recount multiple incidents where Owens purportedly changed stories about meetings, alibis, and involvement in various investigations, asserting she uses “receipts” selectively and inconsistently to support divergent claims. - The speakers allege that Owens’s public warfare against Trump and TP USA is part of a broader intelligence operation intended to disrupt conservative momentum, link to Royal/MI6 circles, and undermine investigations into the deep state and its networks. - Tyler Robinson case and media dynamics - They describe Tyler Robinson as a Middle American figure whose transformation into a political actor is portrayed as a product of online radicalization and Tarantifa-linked influences. They claim there was a concerted effort to spoon-feed disinformation about Robinson and Candace Owens’ involvement. - They argue this is part of a larger pattern of media manipulation and disinformation designed to distract from real conspiracies and to target Trump and conservative movements. - Strategy and messaging guidance - The speakers advocate for Trump to go on the offensive with Epstein, releasing comprehensive, verified documentation, and pushing accountability for “rogue actors” in the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, and the NSA. - They stress the need for aggressive prosecution and the appointment of trusted figures to lead the Epstein disclosures, arguing that this could restore public confidence and pivot the political conversation toward accountability for the deep state. - They urge addressing the statute of limitations issues in COVID, January 6, and 2020 election-related cases before the window closes in early 2026, warning that delays by Bondi, Blanche, and others could jeopardize prosecutions and political support. - Promotional and logistical notes - The dialogue includes frequent mentions of promoting Alex Jones programs, products, and stores (alexjonesstore.com and infowarsstore.com) to fund operations, along with appeals to listeners to support the broadcasts financially and through purchases, framing financial support as essential to sustaining investigations, media efforts, and broader political action. In sum, the transcript presents an entangled, aggressively conspiratorial narrative: a claim that Epstein’s files illuminate a vast, deeply embedded deep-state apparatus spanning multiple nations and agencies; a call to appoint trusted figures (notably Tom Fitton) to supervise full disclosure; a push for Trump to declassify and publicly prosecute the implicated actors; a harsh critique of Candace Owens as part of a disinformation ecosystem; and a broader strategy to use Epstein, along with related investigations, to dismantle perceived institutional corruption while fueling political narratives and fundraising.

- The conversation centers on Andrew Tate and a divide in the conservative space about whether he is a “good guy” or a bad guy. A video of Tate is shown to frame the discussion. - A video excerpt from Speaker 1 features Tate describing how he became a multimillionaire by creating a webcam studio. He explains he took girls who lacked experience or equipment and built a system that allowed him to convince them to participate, retain 100% control of their income, and ensure they were effective in a highly competitive industry. He stresses that it’s not easy money and that the process requires many tips and tricks to ensure a girl can make money from home, implying that once trained, a girl could potentially earn unlimited money. He also questions why a girl would stay with him once she can make money independently. - Speaker 0 argues that Tate was a webcam operator who objectified women and acted like a pimp. They reference a separate video showing Tate allegedly whipping a girl and note that if the girl was 15 at the time based on Tate’s stated age, that would be problematic. They ask whether Tate should be given a pass and invite thoughts on fairness in criticizing him. - Speaker 2 weighs in with nuance, saying it is not black-and-white and that they have not done a deep dive into Tate’s entire situation. They acknowledge Tate’s past involvement with encouraging girls to participate in OnlyFans-style content and express disapproval, hoping Tate would publicly acknowledge that this was a mistake and express regret. They note that many women enter porn or stripping due to desperation or trafficking, suggesting vulnerability in those Tate might have preyed upon. They admit uncertainty about whether Tate committed criminal acts, mentioning potential legal age issues (Tate operating in a country where the legal age of consent is 16, and a separate girl possibly being 15) and the absence of victims coming forward. - Speaker 2 also claims Tate has been unfairly persecuted. They describe a prior raid/arrest and a social media “PizzaGate” narrative on X (formerly Twitter), arguing that while PizzaGate itself is real, Tate’s alleged actions do not compare to Hillary Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged activities. They emphasize that Tate is being portrayed unfairly and that redemption would be preferable. - Both speakers discuss redemption and reform: Speaker 2 suggests Tate could seek redemption by stating regret for past actions, condemning the porn/OnlyFans route, and encouraging women to avoid or leave such work, highlighting the need for support, healing, and respect for women who have experienced abuse. They suggest a forgiving community could respond positively to an acknowledgment and a commitment to change, rather than punitive treatment.

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.

The speakers discuss alleged hidden dynamics within Turning Point and connections to international and ideological forces. Speaker 0 claims that Arizona has long investigated Turning Point, and that conversations within the state finally broke into the public sphere. He says he spoke with Liz Harris, a former Arizona House member, and asserts that Harris told him, “Turning Point's Mossad. Tyler Boyer is Mossad. They're all neocons. They're connected to Mossad.” He says he has the report and a recording of Harris saying this, emphasizing that many people warned him but he wanted to verify for himself. He states that "when Charlie died that was it for me" and that he decided it was time to come out and reveal what he witnessed and participated in, apologizing to the American people. Speaker 1 acknowledges familiarity with Liz Harris and then asks for details about internal communications leaking after Charlie’s death, which allegedly show that he was leaving the Zionist cause and that leadership faced questions about Israel policy. The question is whether Tyler Boyer was explicitly asked about this direction and what his answer was. Speaker 0 describes an incident in Boyer’s office where a female associate asked Boyer, “why are you so against Candace Owens. The Israel cause etcetera.” He says Boyer closed the door, pulled the speaker’s friend in, and told her, “listen, I’m a Zionist. Candace Owens is a black conservative who wants to be relevant in this movement. And she's doing whatever she can at all cause to stay relevant.” He presents this as proof, claiming it is in the text he sent to Stu and that the friend confirmed it in the office encounter. Across the exchange, the core assertions are that Liz Harris labeled Turning Point's leadership as connected to Mossad and neocon interests, specifically naming Tyler Boyer as Mossad; that after Charlie’s death there were internal, leaked communications about Zionist alignment and Israel policy; and that Boyer disclosed a Zionist stance and disparaged Candace Owens during a confrontation in his office, presenting Candace Owens as attempting to stay relevant in the movement.

The conversation threads through a tangled set of relationships and alleged secrets surrounding Erika and her past marriages. Speaker 0 introduces Erika’s first husband, Derek Chelsvigg, and notes a young daughter from Erika’s earlier marriage, questioning why this history is hidden and suggesting possible trafficking concerns. They mention an apparent photoshoot with Erika’s ex-husband and speculate about whether Erika had another daughter, while observing that information about her past is being scrubbed online. The speakers reference Erika’s old Instagram and her ex-husband’s social media remaining private, implying secrecy around Erika’s past. They wonder if Erika is a time traveler and recall a past shoot with someone named Tyler, asking whether he was murdered or disappeared. They mention Cabot Phillips dating Erika after the marriage, and a timeline: seven days after that marriage, Cabot Phillips is seen playing ball with someone named Charlie. They propose theories that Erika could have harmed Charlie or that Charlie simply disappeared, and note that an ex-boyfriend may have reappeared in the scene. The possibility is raised that Erika is a honeypot moving between relationships, with “stepping stones” in her life. Speaker 0 also reveals that Erika has a sister, and asks where she is. Speaker 2 introduces a whistleblower: an insider who warns that exposing the truth would provoke retaliation against him and anyone who helps him. This person found emails, approvals, and signatures tying Erika’s wife’s charity work to the same network, and says he didn’t yell or accuse but went quiet, believing that if Erika is part of the network, everything has been a lie. For him, the matter shifted from politics to a personal crisis, and he says that if he stays quiet, he’s “one of them”; if he speaks, he’s dead, but people deserve to know. Speaker 0 asserts that Charlie discovered information about Erika and discussed filing for divorce two days before Charlie’s disappearance; there has still been no autopsy released, and Erika is the only person who could release it, labeled as “Sussy.” Speaker 1 announces a situation that is “absolutely out of control,” criticizing incompetent politicians and referencing a presidential figure, then broadens to state-level politics with John McCain mentioned. The speaker complains about campaign contributions, special interests, and lobbyists, and predicts political turnover. They vow to “make this country so great again” and describe an event where, according to the speaker, reporters who were crying were present—hard, better reporters who were once known to the speaker as not good people. The exchange ends with a more casual check-in: “How you doing back there?”

Mitch Snow, a Fort Huachuca whistleblower, joined a Diligent Spaces edition on X after being invited by the host and via a “request” process. The hosts set ground rules: the focus would be Mitch’s experiences surrounding Fort Huachuca, not a forum for relitigating prior smears, and they invited Mitch to share only what he was comfortable with. The conversation would later open to other speakers for questions. Mitch’s cohost and others emphasized the breadth of questions from the audience and signaled that some topics might be deferred if he wasn’t ready. Mitch explained that his trip to Fort Huachuca was driven by his ongoing effort to obtain records related to his past military service, the events surrounding JTF Six, and the broader history of possible government involvement with drug-trafficking networks. He described a long-standing pattern of being targeted and silenced, with the aim of gathering records to support a custody dispute with his ex-wife and to protect his relationship with his son. He emphasized that the motive for going to Fort Huachuca included reinforcing prosecutorial records that would help his case and corroborating details about the “prosecutorial records” and the tunnel-related evidence that he had previously encountered. Key background Mitch shared included his early involvement with JTF Six in May 1990, where he served as a ground radar and REMBAS sensor operator. He described laying seismic and acoustic sensors to detect movement and to investigate the trafficking routes of cocaine entering through Douglas, Arizona, near the border between Fort Huachuca and Fort Bliss. He recounted that they discovered an underground tunnel used in trafficking, which involved money, guns, and a substantial quantity of cocaine. He characterized the tunnel as an elaborate structure, reportedly linked to a $11,400,000 project, nicknamed a “James Bond Tunnel,” with photos indicating Mexican-side involvement by U.S. members. He testified that a raid followed, the tunnel was shut down, and the cartel reportedly redesigned its distribution channels afterward, shifting smuggling to ports and submarines along the East Coast and other entry points. Mitch described his involvement in interrogations and depositions: he testified in an inquiry with Army CID and a federal prosecutor from Tucson, was later transported home on a plane from Fort Drum, and received a deposition. He explained that the tunnel raid produced a body of evidence beyond cocaine, including firearms and money, and that there were ongoing efforts to obtain prosecutorial records, some of which he intended to reinforce with firsthand documentation. In recounting his motive for returning to Fort Huachuca in September (the date spoken about is September 8/9, 2025 in the discussion), Mitch explained that his purpose was to reinforce archival records, to seek information about prosecutions connected to the tunnel case, and to obtain evidence for his custody case. He noted that this trip was part of a broader record-collection mission across multiple bases (Fort Lewis, Fort Bragg, Fort Huachuca, Fort Houston), often meeting resistance from the government in providing access to files. A central focus of the interview was Mitch’s observations at Fort Huachuca, particularly on his first day at the Candlewood Suites on base (the hotel that serves both base personnel and civilian guests under a private contract). Mitch stated that the Candlewood on base is the location where the civilian side of the base’s lodging is connected with base access, including the gate process that allows civilians who can prove acceptable reasons to enter. He emphasized that he was not barred from entry as a civilian; he could enter with proper identification and a vehicle. He noted that the Candlewood is the same building Mitch had pictorially identified in the past as barracks converted to a hotel, and he described the lobby scene, with a front desk and two enlisted personnel, and a private conversation occurring between a man he perceived as a potential ex-Special Forces contractor and a woman he described as sophisticated and “affluent-looking” with a “sheen.” Mitch intentionally did not name the individuals and described the woman as having a blonde ponytail and striking eyes. Mitch recalled that the couple left in a green GMC or similar vehicle after a private conversation in the hotel lobby. He observed the exchange between the woman and the man with the green watch, noting that the woman walked around the front of the vehicle to get into the passenger seat, with the man driving. He described noticing the couple in the lobby, speculating that the man could be a professional contractor or ex-Special Forces, and that the woman and man later drove away together. In the course of the first day, Mitch moved around the base, visiting the Candlewood, and trying to locate the CID (Criminal Investigation Division) building to request his records. He described getting various directions that sometimes proved incorrect, and he recounted speaking with a gate guard at the entrance to help him locate the right building. He described the interior of the building where he sought to speak to staff about records from the 1990s, including a reception area, a podium, and a pair of personnel at the front desk. He walked through a sequence of rooms, including a sign-in log, and noted a “gray-haired” captain who came to speak with him about his records. In the course of that initial visit, Mitch observed that a VIP party, including a congressman with a congressional pin and two other men with a dual-flag pin, exited the building. He provided a detailed description of the scene, including where the VIPs walked, how close he stood, and the expressions and posture of the men. Mitch identified one of the men exiting as Brian Harpole (whom he later connected to a televised event or interview), and he described the other two as military officers. He described the VIP’s entourage passing him in a doorway, within arm’s reach, with the congressman and others moving through a hallway. He noted the patches on their uniforms, including Ten Mountain Division insignia and airborne patches. After the VIP group left, a black GMC vehicle arrived and a man who had been at the Candlewood the night before joined the group, and they walked to the vehicle. Mitch described the presence of a park ranger, a detective, two captains, and a lieutenant colonel. He testified that a private conversation occurred near the front desk, and a group of officers and federal agents assembled outside as he waited near the front doors. Mitch stated that the group’s arrival and confrontation culminated in him being escorted outside and escorted off the base. He described a bomb-threat-like incident: the officers announced a need to check his vehicle for explosives, evacuated the building, and placed him in a car with Captain Neff to drive him to CID. Mitch said he was escorted to an interrogation room at CID, where he was questioned for several hours with various officers presenting records from county, VA, and other agencies. He described being asked if he could be helped, whether he posed harm to himself or others, and whether he could receive psychiatric counseling; a civilian counselor was brought in to interview him, and he noted the counselor appeared inexperienced and asked questions about medications, diagnoses, and emotions. Mitch reported that the post commander ordered him trespassed off the post for 24 hours, after which he could return for further discussion. He stated that he left the base and returned to Tucson, where his girlfriend Amy (noting that she had supported him) remained a linchpin in his efforts, coordinating his travel and documentation. He described returning to Tucson the next day, then flying to Salt Lake City before returning home. During the time away, his phone communications with Amy intensified; she was understandably distressed by the events, and she encouraged him to pursue answers. Mitch explained that, upon returning to civilian life, he and Amy confronted a press environment rife with allegations and the notion of “stolen valor.” He described receiving calls and emails from Candace Owens, who helped to validate his story and push for its public discussion. He recounted that Candace Owens scheduled interviews and invited him to discuss the case, revealing that his narrative had drawn significant attention from some quarters and intense attacks from others. He credited Candace Owens with validating the authenticity of his experiences, and he expressed appreciation for her willingness to put his story into a broader public arena, even as he cautioned that some individuals and organizations sought to discredit him. Mitch stressed that his overarching aim has been to obtain the records that would corroborate his narrative: the tunnel discovery, the JTF Six mission, the weaponry and materials seized, the agents involved, and the broader implications of the trafficking network. He asserted that the goal was to assemble concrete evidence, to hold those responsible to account, and to secure access to his records for a custody case and future court proceedings. The discussion included a strong emphasis on the persistence of harassment over decades, across administrations of different political parties (Clinton, Bush, Trump), and the complicating factor of private security contractors and other non-military personnel who have been present at bases. Mitch described a pattern of targeted harassment and a complex set of “shills” in public discourse who attempted to discredit him by attacking his past credentials, as well as the idea that the same sources or sponsorship accounts funded a coordinated effort to undermine him. Toward the end, Mitch acknowledged the support from his partner Amy, praising her resilience and courage. The host and panelists praised Amy for standing by Mitch through intense scrutiny and pressure. The group expressed gratitude for Mitch’s candor and the time he spent answering questions, emphasizing that the broader audience should carefully consider the authenticity of his experiences and the seriousness of his claims. They discussed potential next steps, including FOIA requests for the presence of named individuals at the base during the September dates, and the possibility of pursuing further documentation from the Candlewood hotel and other on-base records. As the space concluded, Mitch thanked the hosts and the audience, noting that he would remain available for future discussion and to provide further details if needed. The group closed with appreciation for the audience’s support and a commitment to continuing the dialogue, with Mitch’s story becoming a touchpoint for broader questions about records, transparency, and accountability in relation to Fort Huachuca, JTF Six history, and the alleged connections to trafficking networks and political elites. The hosts announced plans to publish a podcast version of the interview and to share the content more broadly, encouraging listeners to spread the message and stay engaged with the ongoing investigation. They ended with a note of gratitude to Amy and Mitch, and to the audience for participating in a conversation that sought to illuminate hard questions with as much factual detail as possible, while acknowledging that some details remained to be disclosed or explored in future discussions.

Speaker 0 outlines concerns about Tyler Boyer, alleging shady activities behind the scenes at Turning Point with underage or of-age younger boys and money laundering operations, and notes Brian Farrance’s extensive deep dive connecting dots. Speaker 1 presents a 2015 vote of no confidence involving Boyer and alleges misuse of GOP County funds. The account claims MCRC funds were not a personal account to be used without discretion or discipline, with ongoing unethical financial behavior, including repeated use of the MCRC debit card without receipts, and abuse of MCRC funds and violation of federal election law. It asserts Boyer exhibited blatant dishonesty in internal and external communications about amounts of funds and budget, demonstrated chronic duplicity and deceptiveness, and violated FEC filing and Arizona election laws on multiple occasions. The resolution demanded an immediate independent audit of the EGC’s financial records and offices, and for Boyer to cease and desist using the MCRC debit card and relinquish all MCRC credit/debit cards or checks. The vote of no confidence was deadlocked, but Boyer cast the deciding vote to defeat the resolution. A former board member alleged Boyer embezzled an inflated fundraising by $50,000. Excerpts of the vote are cited, and a 2015 article notes Boyer “proves once again that he is unfit to lead the party.” The speaker asserts TPUSA (Turning Point USA) does not respond to requests for comment. Speaker 0 continues, quoting a thread that labels Boyer as “one of the most dishonest gaslighting grifters,” directly responsible for corruption in TPUSA, and accuses him of conflating issues while playing the victim. It cites Candace Owens calling out Boyer on her show, claiming she knew Boyer was lying when he tweeted that a man was commanded by the police to take down cameras, and urges viewers to check a clip. Speaker 2 references a video in which a participant says the video shows what Boyer was doing before cameras were taken down, including an incident with Charlie getting shot and a camera operator who was hired by Boyer. A subsequent thread alleges Candace Owens on Halloween described Boyer as “the king of shady” and says Turning Point USA is a Mormon organization rather than a Christian one. Speaker 0 adds that there is no story anywhere about Boyer involving sexual assaults, cover-ups, embezzlement, or bribery, and notes donors halted long-time TPUSA donations after the Ingram family and Family Trust demanded a governance and audit response, with others echoing concerns. It mentions harassment by Turning Point shills and references to past scandals (Halloween, COVID) and allegations including sexual assault cover-ups, embezzlement, and bribery. Speaker 1 notes that after donors halted contributions, more donors joined the concerns, and that this was followed by harassment of TPUSA and spread of propaganda, with mentions of doxxing and defamation threats. The clip ends with Candace breaking down the story on the show last week. Speaker 2 concludes by recounting further alleged details about Boyer’s involvement in Maricopa County politics, including embezzlement accusations, his alleged pattern of hiring people around Charlie, and claims about Boyer’s background. It also mentions Tyler Boyer’s education—majoring in Soviet studies—and his fluency in Russian, implying ties to Ukrainian communities and challenging assumptions about Russian speakers. The transcript ends with a disclaimer that everything stated is alleged, an opinion, not facts, and that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, explicitly applying this to Tyler Boyer.

Candace Owens is described as a former friend of Charlie and at one time an employee of Turning Point, accused of peddling conspiracies and “building her business off of these lies,” with the assertion that she is making “a huge amount of money” from them. The speaker’s response to Candace Owens and others spreading these lies is simply: “Stop.” The conversation then shifts to a revelation that the interview was prerecorded, with sources from CBS News and audience members who say they had to do multiple takes because Barry wanted to read a prompter and questions were pre-submitted. In addressing the question, the speaker asserts that the podcaster Candace Owens and others are “lying,” and that “All of the money. Millions upon millions of dollars” have been earned by some people, while others did not benefit as claimed. The speaker argues that Candace Owens implies that building a business from podcasting results in immediate wealth, but claims the speaker “already had this business” and was “already at top of the chart.” Eric responds, and the speaker’s response to what to say to Candace Owens who is lying is “stop,” with a request for Erica to be explicit about what was lied about. The speaker claims to have reviewed lists and cannot find the lie, asserting that “The lies that I find are coming out of Turning Point USA.” Examples cited as lies from Turning Point USA include Mikey’s blood on him, Mikey’s dad being confused, and Rob McCoy’s statements about his father, which the speaker says Rob McCoy was confused about. The speaker also says Mikey’s departure as a hero does not feel honest, and alleges Charlie’s claim that he stopped a 30-06 bullet due to healthy eating and strong bones was a modern-day Christian miracle and a lie. The speaker asserts Charlie never wavered in his support for Israel, calling that a “nasty lie,” and accuses Turning Point USA of lying about Charlie’s life in the last weeks. The speaker also mentions claims that Barry won something, and questions whether Charlie’s evangelical commitment and preference for Catholic architecture were misrepresented as lies. The speaker notes further that Turning Point USA lied about various other points, including a supposed “blood bad blood” between Ben Chifferro and others, and Terrell Farnsworth being told to remove an SD card by police, stating that Terrell Farnsworth personally told the speaker that was not true. The speaker claims Terrell removed the SD cards because hats were being stolen, not because of other thefts, and questions the logic of taking the cameras instead of just the SD card, especially the camera behind Terrell’s head. Additional alleged lies include Charlie establishing a Doge, which is claimed not to have existed, and prior to Elon Musk’s government-accountability remark, that Charlie Christine flew drones—described as a major lie by Brian Harpold, who also allegedly stated that security had communicated with UB police to secure rooftops, which the speaker calls a lie. The speaker asks what they lied about, acknowledging mistakes but insisting they have not found a lie, and asks why there isn’t the same energy about lies from the feds, who allegedly told lies as well. The speaker references missing footage of Tyler Robinson turning himself in, unresolved questions about Egyptian planes, and years of tracking Charlie and Erika, with others laughing at these points. The speaker asks explicitly what they lied about and requests clarity, noting possible time-zone mistakes and a timeline discrepancy, and asking where the speaker is lying.