TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 notes that the last administration was not transparent on the issue, but with the task force created, they have guided members within what they're cleared for. He asserts that they have encountered alien beings and recovered vehicles, with physical proof, and that he was partially cleared into those activities, having read intelligence reports from those programs. Speaker 1 reflects that online discourse about encounters and videos is plentiful, and asks if there is belief that the US government knows about alien beings coming to Earth. Speaker 0 responds that he doesn’t like to characterize where they came from, but they are definitely some kind of nonhuman sentience. He claims to have recovered vehicles and physical proof and says he had partial access to the data and to intelligence reports. He confirms seeing with his own eyes according to his account. Speaker 2 says NASA speaks for itself and claims transparency with data, and asks whether to believe David Crush or if he is lying, and where the evidence is. Speaker 0 asserts that members of the current administration are very aware of this reality and the current president is knowledgeable on the subject. He trusts the president’s leadership and believes the president has assembled a team; he says if Trump wants to be the greatest president and the most consequential leader in world history, he certainly has the knowledge, capabilities, and understanding of some of these sensitive government transparency issues. Speaker 3 says he has access and has had meetings with very smart people who believe there is something out there, and it makes sense there could be. He is not convinced himself. He asks if the person believes one, that he knows, and two, that he’s open to transparency on UAPs. Speaker 0 reiterates that the president is very well informed on the issue, and avoids revealing more than the president might want to reveal. He notes a role to cover this up through administrations. Speaker 1 asks about years of threat and testimony. Speaker 0 says he was physically threatened even before submitting his intelligence community inspector general report under the previous administration, and sought legal protection because of professional and personal fear. Speaker 1 asks about recovering pilots or remains and whether that was seen with his own eyes. Speaker 0 confirms there were pictures and says yes, there were remains. Speaker 1 questions whether the origin is from another planet or outer space, and if it is interdimensional, seeking clarification. Speaker 0 explains he has talked to many veterans of the program and keeps an open mind on origin. He acknowledges an extraterrestrial hypothesis but does not usually go there because he did not see the data, and he is not conversant in the high-confidence theories the US government has. He is not aware of any remains or signs of extraterrestrial beings or technology by his department. Speaker 3 says the US government knows, but asks whether other governments know. Speaker 0 says they know and have their own programs, and notes that two and a half years ago the US has been in an arms race with peer competitors like Russia and China, who have their own programs. He says he was able to view intelligence discussing adversarial programs and will leave it at that. Speaker 3 states that they’ve recovered things, and Speaker 0 confirms, noting there were bodies and physical remains. They discuss whether the motive or intent of the visitors was peaceful or not, acknowledging a mixed bag of activity and motive. They consider whether Earth’s genetic material could be a reason for visits, even jokingly proposing Jurassic Park as a tourist attraction for genetic material on Earth.

Hi. I'm Rachel, and my name is currently first on a website claiming to expose Charlie Kirk's murderers. In the last two days I've been getting messages nonstop, claiming to know where I live and saying they're coming for me. I said I was terrified to think of how far right fans of Kirk aching for more violence could turn this into a radicalizing moment. That analysis came from the fact that I am an experienced journalist who has extensively covered right wing extremism. That's also why, by the way, a lot of people hate me and wanna shut me up. And suddenly, I was, like, the face of people Charlie Kirk's murder, even though that literally never happened. And for what? They're just proving me right. I just really hope no one makes good on these threats because I now have to live as if they might.

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.

Speaker 0 posits a theory that there were state actors or foreign intelligence agencies involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and attributes this belief to Benny Johnson, describing Johnson as “the anarchist” who told him so, and invites viewers to “check this clip out.” Speaker 1 responds by acknowledging that there is reason for people to believe this could be a professional hit job. They reference John Salmond as an excellent reporter and Steven Crowder as having access to leaked information. They state, “there is some considerable evidence that there were state actors involved here,” and emphasize their close connection to Charlie Kirk and his team, asserting that this is what they wish to relay to the audience. Speaker 0 returns to challenge Benny, asking which specific element changed his mind and led him to conclude that Tyler Robinson is now not a lone actor, and that state-level or foreign intelligence agencies were not involved in the assassination. He enumerates several potential clues: a text message from Lance Twiggs, similarities between Tyler Robinson’s photo and the jail mugshot, the speed at which Tyler Robinson was able to sprint, and the “man of steel” autopsy claim that Charlie Kirk stopped a 30-06 with his neck. He then asks which of these factors was decisive in shifting Benny’s belief away from the involvement of state actors, and expresses intent to wait for Benny’s answer.

The conversation centers on claims surrounding Cash Patel (referred to as Kash Patel in parts) and the investigation into conspiracy theories tied to the murder of Charlie Kirk. Speaker 0 recalls Patel’s assertion that questioning the FBI’s official narrative and insisting anything other than a lone shooter with a trans girlfriend who allegedly used a 30-06 rifle would not only fail to fit the narrative but also brand critics as anarchists, harmful, and conspiracy theorists. This set the stage for contrasting past remarks and current assertions about the case. Speaker 1 introduces what they call a breaking development: the FBI reportedly says the Charlie Kirk conspiracy theories are legit, describing this as the first time the government has acknowledged such theories in relation to the case. They connect it to broader controversial topics like JFK and UFOs, implying an unusual shift in official stance. They then state that Cash Patel says he is actually investigating the numerous conspiracy theories surrounding the murder of Charlie Kirk. Speaker 0 follows by questioning Patel’s consistency, asking listeners to remember if Patel had previously claimed or asserted something different, signaling a discrepancy between prior statements and new claims about investigations into conspiracies. Speaker 2 adds that, in relation to social media, when hysterical conspiracy theories fill the void, they harm Charlie and his family and the rightful prosecution of his alleged assassin, who is in custody, and notes that if anyone helped the assassin, the FBI would not let them get away with it. This emphasizes a concern about the impact of conspiracy theories on the victim’s family and the legal process. Speaker 0 closes by addressing Kesh Patel directly, asserting, “No. We don’t think you’re gonna let them get away with it,” implying certainty that Patel will assist in covering up or obstructing accountability rather than pursuing conspiracy theories. Overall, the dialogue juxtaposes Patel’s claimed investigations into Charlie Kirk conspiracy theories with the FBI’s alleged stance on such theories, while also highlighting tensions between public discourse on conspiracies, media commentary, and the pursuit of justice regarding the murder case.

Speaker 1 says that the real information about the Epstein files has not come out and that “there were only four Republicans, four of us that’s really fought to get them released,” who “signed the discharge petition, went against the White House,” and were “threatened,” with Donald Trump calling him a traitor and saying his friends would be hurt. He questions why anyone would vote for Republicans if the administration doesn’t release all the information, framing it as a line in the sand for many people. Speaker 0 asks why they think the Epstein files are being hidden. Speaker 1 responds that it’s because the hidden information would protect “some of the most rich, powerful people,” arguing that Epstein was “definitely some sort of part of the intelligence state” who was “working with Israel” and with the “former prime minister of Israel.” He asserts that these are “the dirty parts of government and the powers that be that they don’t want the American people to know about.” He concludes that, sadly, he doesn’t think the files will come out. Speaker 0 presses on whether Trump is in the Epstein files. Speaker 1 speculates that if someone is “living under blackmail” or “living under threat” and told not to release information, that fear could influence actions. He suggests that someone might be warned by threats to prevent disclosure, giving a hypothetical example: after standing on a rally stage, you could be shot in the ear and warned that “next time we won’t miss,” or that the bullet might be for someone you care about. He says he is “speculating,” but notes he has “a strong enough reason to speculate like that.”

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.

Speaker 0 describes Skyler as having given about four different interviews online right after the Charlie Kirk assassination. She notes he is seen with glasses on top of his head, front row at the scene, and somehow sits on the Main Floor at the Charlie Kirk Memorial during the memorial service. She asks, “Who is this guy? How is this possible? And why are his interviews so odd?” She points out that on the day of the shooting Skyler was in the front row and near a bodyguard. Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 recount Skyler’s position: “Maybe 10 or 15 feet away when it happened. Close as he could.” They describe Skyler with sunglasses on his head, and a Charlie Kirk bodyguard in front of him, with Skyler off to the side in the corner when Charlie began taking questions. They note the bodyguard is directly in front of Charlie, Skyler to the side, matching Skyler’s own account of being “front row, Noel in front of him,” with a bodyguard to his left and one in front of him. They say Skyler was “front row and center.” Speaker 0 then says Skyler later appeared sitting on the Main Floor at the Charlie Kirk Memorial, with a floor pass for a press conference, literally “maybe 10 or so rows from the front of the stage.” They claim this is documented on Skyler’s Facebook page. They mention Skyler’s Facebook shows two, perhaps “two point, I think, k” followings, with from 2018 to 02/2025 only about seven posts and about 10 pictures, implying a sparse content profile for a “digital creator.” Speaker 3 describes Skyler’s earlier claim about getting into the stadium: “Just made it to the stadium. There is an unlimited amount of security, Secret service, military, police, empty. Steel barricades all around. … There’s been people waiting in line since 05:30 in the morning.” He says Skyler went past multiple security layers to obtain a media badge and a floor pass, and then ended up on the Main Floor “a few rows back to the Charlie Kirk Memorial.” The speakers question how he could gain access and yet appear to be late, then have a media pass and seating positions. Speaker 4 adds, “So, again, why go into detail acting as if you were late, you didn’t even know you were gonna get in, yet somehow you end up with a passing all these checkpoints to get a media pass around your deck, end up on the First, you know, Main Floor just a few rows back to the Charlie Kirk Memorial that day. It’s just like it’s a big act, a big show that this guy's putting on. It’s like he was handpicked to do all these interviews. He was handpicked to have front row that day because he was up, you know, farther up in the crowd before Charlie got there.” Speaker 4 closes with a segment featuring a clip of another person describing a mythic, imagery-laden interpretation: “An indecision night. I photoshopped in my mind. I photoshopped the blood away. I photoshopped Charlie, sat him back up, put his smile back on, and rewound the tape… I rewound the bullet going back up into the rifle. I stuck a flower inside the rifle.”

The speaker explains that in the three months since Charlie Kirk’s murder, they have largely refrained from commenting publicly on the investigation. They say this is not due to lack of care or affection for Charlie, whom they knew well since his teenage years, but because they feel they don’t know more than others and want to avoid missteps given their personal connections to those involved. They name Candace Owens, Blake Neff, and Erica Kirk as people they know well and respect, and emphasize a desire to honor Charlie’s memory by seeking justice without criticizing others’ motives when people are sincerely pursuing the truth. They recount a three-hour conversation with Theo Vaughan during which the topic of Charlie Kirk’s case arose. They state they told Vaughan they do not trust the FBI, clarifying that this statement was not an accusation that the FBI is involved in Charlie’s assassination, and they did not intend to imply such. They acknowledge they like Dan Bongino and Cash Patel and do not believe they would intentionally cover up a murder, but they argue that the FBI, being at the top of the organization, is part of a large bureaucracy where some parts act independently from leadership. Therefore, liking individuals within the organization does not equate to trusting the FBI as a whole. The speaker asserts that, as a lesson of the 2024 election, many of the nation’s largest systems and institutions have rot and require reform. They contend that January 6 was a setup and that the FBI was key to that setup, stating it remains unclear whether everyone involved has been fired or punished. They insist that no American is under moral obligation to believe everything the government tells them, especially institutions with a documented history of wrongdoing, such as the FBI’s alleged crimes, manufacturing crimes, and distorting justice. They emphasize that the job of the FBI is to find out what happened, tell the public how they arrived at conclusions, and convince the public of the outcomes, rather than hiding behind national security or confidential sources. The speaker concludes by committing to avoid talking about topics they do not understand, to state things only as they know them, and to remain skeptical. They stress a duty to skepticism and to seek truth and justice without being swayed by tone or certainty from government officials. They reiterate love for Charlie and a wish for justice, while urging others to maintain scrutiny toward the investigation.

Question about a written note before the assassination attempt: "the written note, we believe, what did exist, and we have evidence to show what was in that note, which is, and I'm going to, summarize basically saying I, the suspect wrote a note saying, I have the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I'm gonna take it. That note was written before the shooting. Evidence of existence, we now have learned, existed before the shooting was in the location, in the suspect and partner's home. But we have since learned that the note, even though it has been destroyed, we have found forensic evidence of the note, and we have confirmed what that note says because of our aggressive interview posture at the FBI."

The conversation centers on the Seth Rich murder and its alleged connection to WikiLeaks and the 2016 DNC email controversy. An FBI forensic report purportedly found that Rich contacted WikiLeaks through a London-based WikiLeaks director, Gavin McFadden, and Rich allegedly provided McFadden with more than 44,000 emails and nearly 18,000 attachments. Rich was killed near his DC home on July 10, but his wallet, phone, and watch were not taken. WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails twelve days later, showing top DNC officials discussing ways to hurt Bernie Sanders at the polls, which contributed to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair and the DNC’s top three officials. Speaker 1 questions whether there is an “October surprise” and whether material is being held. Speaker 2 of the Helix group states that they do not sit on material and emphasizes that whistleblowers take significant risks; they note Rich’s murder as an example of high stakes and risk to sources, asserting that sources seek anonymity with them. When Speaker 1 asks if Rich was a source, Speaker 2 declines to comment but says they are investigating what happened to Rich and are concerned about it, though no conclusion has been reached. Speaker 3 argues that Rich was a Bernie Sanders supporter who worked for the DNC and asserts that the DNC rigged the primary against Sanders; he notes that Rich was aware of this and was involved as it happened, with Donald Brazil also involved. He describes Rich as idealistic and patriotic, and recounts his murder after leaking information to WikiLeaks, insisting that this is not a conspiracy theory but a fact-based concern. He challenges others to acknowledge the alleged corruption within the Democratic party and suggests that those who ignore the facts are engaging in denial. He also critiques media portrayals and online accusations about his own credibility. Speaker 4 discusses Assange and WikiLeaks, criticizing the idea of a conspiracy theory and labeling Assange as a key figure who exposed corruption. He mentions that Assange now “works for Russia” and questions the Ecuadorian embassy situation, describing it as heavily manipulated by interests around Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. He connects the Seth Rich disclosures to broader allegations of a coordinated effort to undermine Clinton and her circle, while acknowledging that some related claims may be questionable. Speaker 6 notes that hacking of the DNC and the role of CrowdStrike remain controversial and points to the subsequent murder of Rich as a focal point for questions that have not been fully explored by the media. Speaker 7 echoes concerns about the timeline, the FBI’s involvement, and past inquiries that were not pursued, emphasizing a sense that the case and the broader narrative around the DNC emails have been inadequately examined. Speaker 8 presents a long, conspiratorial narrative alleging that on 11/01/2016 Hillary and Bill Clinton orchestrated a civilian coup through corruption and co-option of key institutions, while a countercoup through Julian Assange and WikiLeaks was initiated to undermine Hillary and the Clinton machine. The speaker claims a silent countercoup across the Internet, led by members of the intelligence community, to stop the Clintons from gaining power and ensure Obama leaves without pardon, framing the moment as a major transitional event and a second American revolution conducted without guns.

And then we're supposed to believe that he had that dramatic switch. So he went from, I'm done to, like, hey. Love you. How can I be of more service to you? And then in that exact same day, he was texting people saying they are gonna kill me. That same night before Charlie Kirk was murdered and had been telling people he thought Israel might try to kill him, his wife, Erica, begged him to wear a bulletproof vest due to death threats he'd been receiving the previous year. Given that Charlie himself thought these threats were credible enough to merit extra security and his wife thought they were credible enough to wear a bulletproof vest. And given that he'd previously singled out Israel as perhaps wanting to kill him, we, the public, should demand an immediate and full disclosure of all of these threats and a complete investigation.

The speaker explains he is trying to navigate possible collaboration with federal authorities while maintaining personal integrity. He says he has a statement that is “completely true” that he’s “never been in contact with any federal authority,” and he’s torn about how to start working with DHS to address threats he faces as a national figure. He claims “the Yemenis, a million of them came out into the streets” and that they want to kill him, with a fatwa on his head. He asserts he would need DHS to make a statement that “the Houthis and their fatwa that they placed on my head will not be stood,” and that “American citizens exercising our rights will not be, you know, subject to to Muslim murder, rituals.” He describes hundreds of thousands of death threats in his DMs and says, to deal with them, he would need to walk into an FBI building and give them a printout, but he “don’t fucking trust the FBI.” He accuses the FBI of having “destroyed my life,” pointing to past raids on his and others’ homes and references to the Mar-a-Lago search, stating he is trying to figure out how to navigate this situation without claiming contact with Harmeet or making contacts he “don’t want to.” He notes that when he and others exercised their rights in Dearborn, he views it as a civil rights hate crime, saying “the Muslim oppression of Christians in Dearborn” was a civil rights hate violation and that “they punched me in the face because I’m white” and “they punched me in the face because I’m Christian, not for anything else.” Harmony Dillon is described as wanting to prosecute this as a hate crime, with others subjected to spit, food thrown, assaults, pepper spray, etc. He mentions the Trump administration’s purported interest in bringing these people to justice, but he expresses a wish not to feed into it, citing personal integrity and caution. He questions whether the rank-and-file FBI officer’s motives are aligned with his interests, contrasting a year ago with a “grandma that walked through the capital” to now a Muslim who punched a Christian, implying hypocrisy or moral decline. He asserts there are “deep state embedded figures in the DOJ, in the FBI, in DHS,” who were involved in actions like the raid on Mar-a-Lago and other “schemes.” He says he needs assurance that these agencies have “our best interest” and that they are not “deep state shills.” Ultimately, he states he has refused to make contact because it’s “too risky” and he cannot be associated with people he deems “un American.”

Three people told me off record. Two have this in a written communication from Charlie. One, who was a Turning Point USA donor. The very day before Charlie Kirk died, he expressed that he thought he was going to be killed. He told these people, "I think they're going to kill me." He had not expressed that to me. So I am telling you this based off the testimony of three people. I hope those people come forward with that. Those conversations were off record; I honor that. But I am hoping that they will tell us who was they—Who is the they that he thought were going to kill him?

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 2 about how they obtained confidential information. Speaker 2 refuses to disclose their source, citing attorney-client privilege. Speaker 0 threatens contempt if Speaker 2 does not reveal the source within 5 minutes. Speaker 2 mentions statements made by Mr. Copeland regarding a murder. The conversation escalates with Speaker 0 demanding answers and Speaker 2 maintaining their stance. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 insisting on knowing the source of the information.

The speaker explains that in the three months since Charlie Kirk was murdered, they have avoided public commentary on the murder investigation out of care for Charlie and respect for the people involved, many of whom they know personally and admire. They emphasize that their goal is truth and justice, and they would not criticize anyone sincerely trying to uncover what happened, recognizing that good motives can lead to wrong conclusions. They recount a three-hour conversation with Theo Vaughan that touched on distrust of the FBI. They clarify this did not mean they accused anyone of involvement in Charlie Kirk’s murder, but it gave them the chance to state that they do not trust the FBI. They distinguish personal trust in individuals (e.g., Dan Bongino, whom they like, and Cash Patel) from trust in the FBI as an institution, noting that parts of the FBI can act independently within a large bureaucracy, separate from leadership. The speaker argues that distrust is not about a general attack on political leadership but about systemic issues. They reference the 2024 election as evidence that major institutions may be corrupt or rot, and they point to January 6 as, in their view, a setup in which the FBI played a key role. They question whether everyone involved in that setup has faced consequences. They insist that no American is morally obligated to believe everything the government says, especially given a history of the FBI's alleged crimes, illicit participation in politics, manufacturing crimes, or distorting justice—claims they assert as part of the FBI’s track record, which, in their view, is counter to its mission to obtain justice through facts and then explain its conclusions. They argue that it is not enough to have government officials declare the truth; the public has the right or obligation to demand proof. A central concern is that the investigation into Charlie Kirk’s murder could be overshadowed by debates about what happened, allowing the FBI to go unchallenged or unaccountable. The speaker asserts that the FBI should tell, show, and convince the public about what happened, rather than hiding behind national security or confidential sources. Ultimately, they commit to avoiding statements they don’t understand, to staying out of the case, but to maintaining love for Charlie and a desire for justice, while urging others to remain skeptical. They conclude that skepticism is a duty and not something to be ashamed of.

they have a rifle, cartridges collected from the woods near the attack location, and footprints compared to the suspect’s shoes. the video was going to be the catalyst, and photographs or images from someone who knew him could reach out to law enforcement or, per the president, push him to turn himself in. multiple sources confirm a person of interest is in custody. a press conference has been slid back as authorities prepare to release information. the community has known that someone had viciously killed Charlie Kirk. police were confident there was no ongoing threat to the public, but there were many unknowns. they’re hopeful this will conclude the case; a name is confirmed by sources as the person in custody, but not released until officially. my sources are breathing a sigh of relief that this case has taken a dramatic turn for the better if this pans out.

Speaker 0 politely asks for the audience to lower their voices and thanks someone for their question. Speaker 1 mentions that federal authorities were not informed about certain information regarding the shooter. Speaker 0 asks for clarification on who "they" refers to. Speaker 1 explains that it was the local police who did not share the information. Speaker 0 states that the matter is under investigation and asks not to argue. Speaker 0 acknowledges the concern in the community but states that the facts are yet to be determined. Speaker 0 declines to make assumptions and ends the conversation.

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?”

Speaker 0 states that a federal investigator told Fox News that an FBI forensic report on Seth Rich’s computer showed he made contact with WikiLeaks through a London-based WikiLeaks director, Gavin McFadden, and that Rich provided McFadden with more than 44,000 emails and nearly 18,000 attachments. Rich was killed near his DC home on July 10; his wallet, cell phone, and watch were not taken. WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails twelve days later showing top DNC officials trading ideas on how to hurt Bernie Sanders at the polls, leading to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC’s top three officials because of the apparent conclusions in those emails. Speaker 1 asks if there is an October surprise and whether anything is known about what is being sat on. Speaker 2 replies that WikiLeaks never sits on material, noting that whistleblowers take significant risks to provide material. He references a 27-year-old DNC worker who was shot in the back in Washington two weeks earlier for unknown reasons, insisting there is no finding that it was a robbery, and questioning what is being implied. Speaker 1 presses, asking if the murdered man was one of their sources. Speaker 2 declines to comment on sources, reiterating that the stakes are high in the United States and that sources face serious risks, which is why they come to WikiLeaks to protect their anonymity. He acknowledges the seriousness of the murder and says they are investigating what happened with Seth Rich, though no conclusion has been reached, and that a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when such events occur. Speaker 3 contends that Seth Rich was a Bernie Sanders supporter who worked for the DNC and implies the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders. He asserts Rich was murdered after leaking information to WikiLeaks, describing Rich as a young, idealistic patriot who wore American flag attire, and argues that the murder is connected to corruption in the Democratic Party. He reflects on his own experience with online detractors and acknowledges flaws in many political figures; he asserts that it is rare to find someone who wants to be “the king of the world” and notes his own perceived lack of reputation. Speaker 4 contributes with emotion, insisting that Seth Rich was murdered and that the claim of a botched robbery is unfounded, listing inconsistencies (wallet, watch, phone left behind). He references Julian Assange and Russia, calling Assange the “darling of the left” when Obama was in office and later noting that Assange is stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy. Speaker 5 and Speaker 6 discuss broader context: Speaker 6 notes that the week WikiLeaks coverage happened on Fox News coincided with Mueller’s appointment and Comey’s firing, suggesting Fox pivoted from Russia stories to Seth Rich to deflect. Speaker 7 explains DNC data release timing, claiming FAT (file allocation table) formatting changed last-modified times on files, implying data was downloaded to a physical device before publication, suggesting an inside job rather than a Russian hack. Speaker 8 links the chain of events to the FBI, CrowdStrike, and questions about the investigation, alleging possible media silence and questioning why the murder case wasn’t more scrutinized. Speaker 9 recalls a private investigator’s work and notes that the FBI came to possess Rich’s laptop, with some at the DNC suspecting political motivation behind his murder; he asserts a media lack of follow-up. Speaker 10 presents a much broader claim: on 11/01/2016, Hillary and Bill Clinton allegedly orchestrated a civilian coup through corruption and co-optation, and a counter coup through Julian Assange and WikiLeaks was initiated by intelligence communities to prevent Hillary from becoming president and to indict Obama administration figures, describing this as a silent, internet-based counter coup and promising a peaceful transition without violence.

Smith onto the space. Harrison, thanks for joining. We’ve got questions about your tweet. How are you? Harrison: I’m pretty good. I just got home, trying to do Advent with my kids, so I have about ten minutes. I heard Matt Baker defending me, so I came to settle objections. What’s up? Smith: First of all, I appreciate you coming on. We’ve had disagreements on X. The first question is about your original tweet about someone telling you Charlie Kirk was going to be assassinated. Explain that, because I’ve got a question about your second tweet. Harrison: That’s it. There’s no further explanation. Somebody with knowledge of the situation told me that, and I tweeted it in response to something Ian Carroll had said, a month before. I told the story again on Moonbase Live when I talked to Jake Shields, a week before the shooting. I won’t tell you who told me because they asked me not to, but it’s basically corroborated. The person I talked to was not the same as those who talked to people like Max Blumenthal. So apparently, multiple people are telling the same story. Only I published it before the event. Did the FBI or TC or something ask you any questions about it? Smith: Nope. Harrison: And that’s the problem, Soleiman. That’s the problem right there. Smith: We’ll move on. He’s got ten minutes. The tweet today said: “the assassination of Charlie Kirk has been a resounding success for the left, they got to kill one of our shining lights, divide the right and normalise political violence and the only backlash they received was Jimmy Kimmel show got suspended for two days.” That seems to contradict your first statement, since the first tweet was before the assassination. How does that message come across? Harrison: The first tweet was before the assassination, so it couldn’t have anything to do with who I thought did it. It was before the assassination, a month earlier, and I had heard the rumor that Charlie Kirk feared for his life. The second tweet reflects the world view that most left people have: “we killed Charlie Kirk. We got away with.” It’s about the left believing they did it and got away with it, and it’s about the weakness of the right to treat threats against us with seriousness. Whether or not it was a leftist is still up in the air; I have unanswered questions about the patsy they have now. Still, the left has benefited. The left acts like they did it. The official story is the left did it, personally. I have questions about that story, but what matters is the widespread perception that the left did it and got away with it, and that informs their behavior. Smith: Do you think the widespread opinion matters? Harrison: I can’t hear you both at once. Matt? Smith: How do you feel about the genocide in Gaza? Harrison: I’m strongly against the genocide in Gaza. Vocally. Since before October 7. I’m against it as an Israeli shill? Smith: No one said that. The argument was that you’ve spoken out against genocide in Gaza before October 7, but Infowars promotes Zionist agendas and Zionist talking points, attacking Muslims in the United States and the UK. Zionist billionaires like Robert Shillman, etc. Harrison: I get it. Zionist interests overlap with mine, but it has nothing to do with Zionism in our calculus. I am for Western culture, America, heritage Americans of all backgrounds, and I’m fighting for Christianity. I’m against Muslims infiltrating Western countries, and I’m against Zionists controlling Western countries. These are not contradictory. There’s nothing Zionist about not wanting Muslims to take over your country, just like there’s nothing Muslim about not wanting Zionists to control your country. Infowars is anti-Zionist recently, and Alex condemns what Israel and Netanyahu are doing. But there’s a deliberate message of unity of all Americans who aren’t trying to dominate or subvert others. Unless they’re Christians, of course. Smith: So you’re saying you’re not arguing for a single team; it’s two enemies, rock, paper, scissors? Harrison: It’s two enemies, not one. I’m against both. I’m against Muslims taking over and against Zionists dominating. It’s not contradictory. It’s not about a single team. Smith: The point isn’t that you must pick sides; the issue is you’ve pushed claims that there is a Muslim takeover, which isn’t supported by numbers or power. People argue this is propaganda. Harrison: Okay. I don’t care whether the takeover has progressed. If I said it’s fake, I’d say that. I’ve got to go, but I appreciate the clarification. Smith: Posted on the day Jake Lang went; you were clearly talking about him. Harrison: I was talking about why Dearborn was the location of the march and why it was appropriate. Jake Lang is Jewish and Zionist; he’s not a Christian. He’s ethnically Jewish. He says he’s Christian, and in Christianity you can convert. I’ll call him a Christian man if that’s how he defines himself. Thanks.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to elaborate on the statement "they'll be killed," referencing Tara Reid and John Paul Mac Isaac's claims of fearing for their lives under the Biden regime. Speaker 1 states they don't know the context, but the briefing indicated a 3-letter agency told the chairman they couldn't amass someone for that reason. Speaker 1 takes this seriously, as it came from the FBI and was witnessed by others. They find it interesting Fox News received no comment when inquiring about it. Speaker 1 believes individuals fear being harmed for revealing information, given the proven corruption and the billion-dollar impact of politics. They understand that two testimonies are needed for impeachment grounds. Speaker 1 concludes that the extent of the alleged wrongdoings of the Biden family and Joe Biden is worse than many people realize.

Speaker 0: Social media is wildly out of control and there’s too much clickbait in this country. One of the things I highlighted in Congress in my testimony last week is that if we wanna protect our youth, we gotta get more involved in social media and online platforms because that’s where the folks, the assassins of this world get radicalized. That’s where they’re the long-lived afters in general. And so we have to get after that problem set, and I asked for Congress to help in doing so. But speaking of Charlie Kirk, was a very dear friend of mine, and then I was tasked with leading the nationwide manhunt to find the perpetrators involved, of course, we were gonna use every resource we have to find every single person involved, and the investigation's still ongoing. But we, as one of the pillars of my leadership here at the FBI, is transparency. We've produced more documents to Congress than my last two predecessors combined by twofold. Just to put it in perspective. So when we take our investigations out to the streets, I have the same ethos. And this is how we got Charlie Kirk's assassin, alleged assassin, so fast. The Boston Marathon bomber, which happened in Downtown Boston during the Boston Marathon took five days, and there was a police officer who was killed in that manhunt. Luigi Mangione, who allegedly murdered an individual, the CEO of the health care company, in Downtown Manhattan in broad daylight took five days to find him. Our investigation is very much ongoing. But we've also Armstrong in an unusual thing put out publicly more information as to what we found because of it is of such public importance. The flip side of that is the social media people get involved and they come run with their crazy conspiracy theories because it makes them money. It gives them clickbait. And I don't work for them, and I don't respond to them. My duty is the American people. If there was anyone else involved in Charlie Kirk's murder, you can look at our record. We'll find them, and we'll...