TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In a video discussion, Stefan Gardner argues that forensic evidence, particularly dust samples, will effectively end conspiracy theories about who fired the shot that killed Charlie Kirk. He contends that dust from the rocks on the roof will leave a unique signature that will be found on the killer’s clothes, the gun, and the shoes, making shoe tread and soil samples crucial to the investigation. Gardner also notes that dust and soil will be found on items connected to the killer’s lay-down on the roof and asserts that gun residue on the killer’s hands would be transferred to the steering wheel, making the killer’s car a major part of the evidence. Responding to this, another speaker, James Lee, mocks the idea that dust matching should come before bullet-to-gun matching, calling the discussion about dust a clownish distraction. The conversation emphasizes the broader expectation that trial evidence will concede to the narrative that the killer’s DNA and shoe dust will identify the perpetrator, while acknowledging public skepticism about the FBI’s presentation of evidence and the timing of disclosures. The speakers contrast the claimed forensic signatures with perceived gaps in the FBI’s narrative, arguing that the investigation will eventually reveal the gun, DNA, and other physical proof at trial. They anticipate that the evidence will demonstrate that the shooter’s shoes and vehicle contain trace material consistent with the crime scene and that the gun was used, but they express doubt about official explanations and the timing or availability of certain evidence, including video footage. A central theme is a critique of the FBI and their handling of the case: the speakers challenge the transparency of the investigation, suggesting that video footage and CCTV evidence should be released to restore public trust. They reference the demand for CCTV footage showing key actions: Tyler Robinson on campus, climbing onto the roof, taking the shot, and then fleeing. They assert there is video evidence of the shooting and question why it has not been released, noting claims that 3,000 people witnessed the incident live and that there is video evidence of planning and movement around the campus, including entrances and parking structures. The dialogue also touches on inconsistencies alleged in material evidence, such as a 30-06 round discussion, with the group arguing that even the smallest round would not plausibly produce the described wound at the distances claimed. They insist that standard investigative procedures would include sharing footage and autopsy details, and they demand transparency on the autopsy, CCTV, and video evidence from the crime scene. Overall, the speakers insist that the investigation should present complete video footage and corroborating evidence to verify the narrative surrounding Tyler Robinson and the murder of Charlie Kirk, labeling the current presentation as “slop.”

"how did this guy know to move to that exact location?" "There was also a man that was arrested in a parking lot with an airsoft rifle." "that crazy guy screaming that he was basically a distraction?" "the best way to tell a difference between people is to look at their ear." "the ear does not is a bit different to the one we've seen of of photos of Tyler, old photos Tyler." "it's not obvious, but we don't have any positive proof here that there is a rifle in this video at all." "how did he get a rifle up on the roof?" "it's not a takedown model." "the bulge in his pocket" "12:23:34" "potato cam footage" "I didn't shoot him, I didn't do anything, I swear guys." "rifle was pre positioned at some period in time, and that he then was able to pick it off the property, and because he knew he couldn't walk all the way across, and then stash it like that as he was moving into position finally." "there's so many different people that are talking about this and it hasn't died yet." "a Twitter post the day before and ended up sharing it, the same day within hours of when Charlie Kirk got shot, that said he was attending school there, he said something very big was gonna happen the next day"

- "earliest it was 12:22 that the individual ran across, set up, took the shots." - "The metadata begins at 12:22 and goes into 12:23, the very minute that Charlie gets shot." - "I saw the shots. I had just stopped recording about twenty seconds before the shot rang out." - "this person looked to him like a foreign agent." - "this person was dressed in tactical gear, and he was wearing a face mask." - "this is the wrong person. I observed this person with my eyes. You have the complete wrong description." - "the gun that the FBI found was not the gun that he saw, that the gun that he saw was smaller."

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.

A speaker asks if the recipient is aware that many Americans believe a recent shooting was a coordinated assassination attempt, not the act of a lone shooter. The speaker cites the shooter's age, proximity to the target with an AR-15, drone surveillance, and being spotted with a rangefinder as reasons for suspicion. The speaker, identifying himself as a former Navy SEAL sniper, notes the obvious sniper position from a water tower. He asks if the recipient is surprised that Americans suspect more to the story, given attempts to bankrupt and imprison the target, and depictions of him as Hitler. The speaker asks if the recipient's team entered and investigated the suspect's home prior to the shooting, to which the recipient says they participated in securing it and provided bomb assets. The speaker then asks if any agents reported anything "fishy" at the home, such as silverware or trash, or if it was extremely clean like a medical lab. The recipient states he was not given those details. The speaker concludes that this is what he is hearing and finds it "interesting."

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.

"all these Internet experts are sure that it was a professional hit against Charlie Kirk." "Firstly, professionals are trained to aim for the center of scene mass." "Neither the center of scene mass or the head was hit." "The round landed here from what I saw." "The shooter got lucky." "Secondly, 200 yards is not that big a distance to make." "and there was even an exfil roof." "If you really wanna analyze these sorts of situations, team, stop looking at the shot." "Check out the planning, check out the prep, and even the exfil route." "Time will tell, I guess."

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.

The speaker and his friend are discussing the chaos at a rally. They mention being told to stay by the Secret Service and witnessing a shooting. They talk about being armed and finding cover behind a tree. They mention a man in a red truck causing trouble and a potential second shooter. The speaker recalls hearing radio communications about a shooter on the roof and blood in the bathroom. They discuss surveillance footage and the speaker's upcoming visit to the FBI building. The speaker is shocked to learn that they were near the subject in the footage. They arrange a meeting time and express disbelief at the situation.

Mitch Snow, Fort Huachuca whistleblower, joined a Diligent Spaces edition hosted on X with his cohosts and guests, describing a two-day sequence centered on his attempt to obtain prosecutorial records and the extraordinary presence he observed at Fort Huachuca. Context and purpose for Fort Huachuca visit - Mitch explained that for years he has been trying to obtain records related to his military service, alleged targeting, and a custody fight involving his son. He has been collecting records across the country (Florida, East Coast, Washington DC) to reinforce a prosecutorial case and defend his reputation. - The last records he needed, he said, were at Fort Huachuca, where there had been prosecutions connected to a tunnel associated with a drug trafficking operation involving the Sinaloa cartel. Mitch described laying sensors (seismic and acoustic) as part of a Joint Task Force Six mission in May 1990, discovering an underground tunnel near Douglas, Arizona, with evidence implicating U.S. members. He testified in an army CID deposition related to that case, and described being flown back to Fort Drum after the deposition. - He stated that the tunnel raid led to the tunnel’s partial shutdown, but that it also caused the cartel to redesign distribution methods (submarines, various ports) and that evidence included photographs showing U.S. members with cartel figures. He asserted that he was targeted and harassed for reporting these findings over the years, including attempts to access his clearance information and threats linked to debt-tracking techniques used by cartels. First day at Fort Huachuca (evening of September 8) - Mitch traveled to Fort Huachuca for the records he needed, planning to stay at Candlewood Suites on base. He arrived around 5:00–6:00 PM Mountain Time, checked in with his girlfriend (Amy) via video call, and went to the lobby to speak with staff about access and the building layout. - In the lobby, he noticed a man who seemed like a professional, possibly a special forces contractor, wearing a distinctive watch; he did not approach or engage with the man. - A woman joined the man on a corner couch; Mitch described the woman as having a “sheen” of being well put together, blonde with a ponytail, and noted the eyes as particularly striking. He observed them leave in a green GMC SUV with the woman entering the passenger seat and the man driving, while he headed off to find a place to eat. - Mitch and Amy had dinner off base at a place described as a Mexican sushi restaurant (Takimaki-like name) and returned to the Candlewood Suites. He reported that the base was navigable but had a lot of speed traps; he did not report being stopped or harassed by MPs on arrival, and he described the gate staff as helpful. - A key moment from this first day was Mitch’s observation in the lobby: the woman sitting with the contractor appeared to be a high-profile figure; he was unsure of her identity but described her as distinct from the military guests, not in uniform. - Later, a panel of listeners asked about the exact appearance and actions of the people Mitch observed, including whether the two individuals were romantic or simply meeting, and whether the female wore rings. Mitch answered with limited detail, saying he did not want to discuss some specifics at that time. Observations at the base and the private meeting later that night - On the first night, Mitch described witnessing the duo in the Candlewood lobby, then later seeing the woman with the contractor in the same lobby as he returned. - He described a potential private discussion between the woman and the contractor, with the two leaving together in the vehicle; the following morning, Mitch provided a rough timeline (5:30–6:00 PM for the lobby sighting, with departure around 7:00–7:30 PM MT). - The Host participants, including Sam, Noxie, Destiny, and Lemair, pressed for precise details and identifiers (make of the vehicle, exact times, and the identity of the people), while Mitch occasionally deferred to not reveal certain details yet, citing comfort and safety concerns. - The host and guests discussed Mitch’s prior experiences, his memory, and the fact that a militarized environment often accompanies high-profile investigations. Several speakers affirmed Mitch’s credibility, noting that his level of detail resembled trained observation (salute reports: size, activity, location, unit, time, and equipment). Second day and the escalation - On the morning of September 9, Mitch woke early (around 05:30) to try to catch the sunrise and continued documenting with Amy via video calls; he described continuing to record selfies, videos, and notes to share with Amy. - Mitch retraced his attempts to locate the CID (Criminal Investigation Division) building to retrieve the records, describing a lack of clear visitor information and multiple detours across post as he sought the proper location. - He encountered a series of baselined rooms, offices, and signs; at one point, an officer suggested a different building and a different path to obtain the records. Mitch found a room with a podium and two soldiers at a desk; he identified it as a near-time, transitional office with a sign-in log. - Mitch reported the appearance of an entourage of high-ranking officers (captains, majors, lieutenant colonels) and a congressman as the group passed by him while he waited. Detainment, questioning, and consequences - Mitch described being escorted outside the building with his belongings, including his bag of documents and passports, while a security/escort team questioned him about his purpose there. He provided his documents and explained his purpose: to obtain the records and file a report. - The officers suggested bringing in a sergeant major, but he did not return; instead, a group of officers and soldiers surrounded him, including a captain, and a bomb-threat-like scenario unfolded: a vehicle investigation was initiated, and a bomb threat was insinuated as part of the unrelated escalation. - Mitch recounted being driven off post to CID for interrogation; he described the interrogation room with one-way glass and the presence of Captain Neff. He provided his detailed life history and his case history, including the NDA he believed had expired and his request to produce a report number for the encounter. - The post commander reportedly trespassed him from the installation for 24 hours, a decision made after the interrogation; Mitch insisted he would not return if trespassed further and stated he would proceed with his records via other channels. He described a variety of law enforcement vehicles at the scene (marked and unmarked police vehicles, federal agents, and a Park Ranger-type officer) and an elaborate, sometimes surreal, sequence of questioning. He documented his own records, including the OIG number (277 episode) and other documentation, and later traveled back to Tucson to regroup with Amy. - Mitch described that he believed the bomb-threat and the post lockdown were part of an overreaction to his attempt to obtain records, noting that such reactions had occurred in the past when his records were sought. He claimed not to have been charged with any crime, but was escorted off the base and told not to return for 24 hours. Aftermath and ongoing implications - Mitch and Amy returned to Tucson and then continued the process, continuing to seek congressional inquiry and prosecutorial review; they also contemplated FOIA requests. They discussed the reality that Candlewood Suites’ ownership was privately operated, complicating direct FOIA access to hotel footage. They mentioned a separate FOIA attempt by a lawyer (Slickdog) to obtain records about sightings of named individuals on Fort Huachuca, with a focus on gate logs and signage. - The pair connected their experiences to broader political events, including the Charlie Kirk incident, Candace Owens’ involvement, and the allegations around Erica Kirk, Brian Harpole, and Mark Amaday, noting the difficulty in obtaining corroborating evidence. Mitch spoke about Candace Owens’ role in amplifying the story, and his own preference to keep certain details private until appropriate. - Throughout the conversation, Mitch’s credibility was repeatedly supported by the other participants who emphasized his memory and attention to detail as evidence of his lived experience. Several speakers stressed the importance of cross-checking facts against the timeline and urged caution against disinformation and attempts to discredit credible testimony. Closing notes - The space concluded with expressions of support for Mitch and Amy, praise for their courage, and a plan to publish and share Mitch’s full story beyond the space. The host highlighted ongoing efforts to verify details, to preserve the record, and to bring attention to Mitch’s experience as part of a broader pursuit of truth. The event was described as a significant, if contested, documentation of a whistleblower’s eyewitness account at a sensitive military installation, with calls to action for audience members to share the narrative and support Mitch and Amy as they continue their efforts.

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 challenges the credibility of the narrative about Charlie Kirk’s incident and points to security footage to raise questions. They reference a security detail member wearing “meta AI shades” who appears to be filming. According to the speaker, when Charlie is hit, the security person turns on the shades, films, and then, as chaos unfolds with a crowd rushing the stage, carries out a handoff. The speaker describes a handoff occurring to a gentleman in a shirt. They claim that this is the moment when someone takes something off Charlie and hands it to the man in the black shirt, who then runs off. The speaker asserts that the item being handed off is the “laugh mic” that allegedly contained an explosive device, implying that the security detail’s first priority was to remove the suspicious object from Charlie and pass it to the other person rather than ensuring Charlie’s safety. The speaker emphasizes that the security detail “knew exactly what to do” and questions how the person receiving the item would know what to do in such chaotic moments, suggesting coordinated movement. They argue that the security actions undermine the official narrative about Charlie Kirk and Tyler Robinson, indicating that the FBI should be questioned and accountability demanded from the FBI and this administration. In summary, the speaker uses the footage to claim that the security team’s behavior—specifically the meta AI shades operator filming, the rapid handoff of an object from Charlie to a man in black, and the subsequent actions—casts doubt on the established story and points to potential coordination and a failure to prioritize Charlie’s immediate safety. The call is for greater scrutiny and accountability of the FBI and the administration.

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

A speaker asks if the recipient is aware that many Americans believe a recent shooting was a coordinated assassination attempt, not a lone shooter, citing messages they've received. The speaker questions why many Americans find the situation "doesn't add up," listing details such as the shooter's age, proximity to the target with an AR-15, drone use, and being spotted with a rangefinder. The speaker, identifying as a former Navy SEAL sniper, notes the obvious sniper position from a water tower. They ask if the recipient is surprised that Americans suspect more to the story, given attempts to bankrupt, imprison, and depict the target as "a modern day Hitler." The speaker asks if the recipient's team entered and investigated the suspect's home prior to the shooting, and if they received reports of anything "fishy" there, such as silverware or trash. They ask if the home was extremely clean, "almost like a medical lab," stating that's what they are hearing.

Colin of Project Constitution sits down with Tyler (the interviewer’s name in the transcript isn’t consistently labeled; the speaker identifying themselves as “Speaker 1”) to discuss an in-depth, ongoing investigation into Charlie Kirk’s assassination and related events. The conversation covers timeline疑s, weapon analysis, hospital logistics, key individuals (notably Erica Kirk, Tyler Boyer, Terrrell Farnsworth, Candace Owens), and alleged foreign and domestic entanglements, with a focus on unfiltered details the team has uncovered. Key points and claims from the discussion: - Initial reaction and approach to Charlie Kirk’s assassination - The team initially accepted the FBI’s narrative but began seeing inconsistencies as reports alternated about suspect custody. Within days after the shooting, the crime scene was reportedly destroyed and the grass replaced with pavers at the university where Kirk spoke. - Video analysis reportedly shows the ground position of the shooter that the FBI cropped out, leading to questions about whether the shooter’s location and the weapon’s origin were accurately represented. - Weapon and ballistics questions - The team raised red flags about the reported firearm: a 30-odd-six was described, but ballistic experts argued that such a round would likely have killed or severely injured the target differently, prompting the theory that the weapon claim did not match the injuries observed. - The investigative team posits the use of an explosion intended to mimic past assassination patterns (e.g., MLK-era examples) and argues the actual kill injuries do not align with a 30-odd-six. - The team’s conclusion, based on crime scene photos, argues the presence of black shards and shards consistent with a microphone (a Rode wireless mic) that shattered on impact; burn marks on Charlie Kirk, and similar black shard traces observed in Candace Owens’ released SUV photos are cited as corroborating evidence. - They propose that an explosion occurred in proximity to the event, with a separate high-powered rifle shot possibly emitted by a drone—suggesting a drone sniper may have fired, not a ground-based shooter, and that the supersonic crack and potential muzzle flash were not from a conventional rifle fire but from a bullet transitioning from supersonic to subsonic speeds, creating a pressure cone. - Hospital choice and post-event handling - Charlie was taken to Tipanogos Hospital rather than a closer facility. Officials reportedly claimed this was to access a higher-grade trauma center, but the timeline questions why the closer hospital wasn’t used and how the decision was made in real time. - A witness (a landscaper at Tipanogos) described the sequence of events: an SUV delivering Charlie Kirk to the hospital, then a second SUV with Mikey McCoy entering through a doctor entrance and leaving, raising questions about who was picked up and where those individuals went afterward. - The FBI reportedly confiscated hospital security camera footage, which the team views as suspicious in a non-crime-scene context. - Candace Owens’ show highlighted an allegation that a surgeon attempted to access the body before Erica Kirk could see it; the surgeon allegedly faced FBI resistance to re-enter the patient area. There is a contested claim about “Superman neck” and whether the surgeon ever stated such language. - Erica Kirk: background, ties, and credibility - Erica is described as potentially military-trained and highly prepared; the team explored her past, tying her to Liberty University’s Falkirk Center and alleged trafficking connections, and to Romanian networks. They assert a pattern of deception—multiple inconsistent stories about how Erica and Charlie met, and extensive past relationships with multiple former partners. - They accuse Erica of deleting past social media and press content, pressuring photographers, and hiding past associations. - The team claims Erica has ties to a broader “Mormon Mafia” network tied to Mitt Romney, with connections to Utah and Arizona. They assert ties to CIA and other security entities, and claim involvement in trafficking and political influence networks. - Tyler Boyer, Terrell Farnsworth, and family/political entanglements - Tyler Boyer is described as deeply connected to the “Mormon Mafia” and as someone who previously ran Turning Point, with shell companies enabling political and charitable activities. The interview alleges he conducted surveillance on Colin and has conflicts of interest in Charlie Kirk’s case. - Terrell Farnsworth and his family connections are described as deeply entrenched in the network; Farnsworth’s stepfather reportedly held a senior position at Duncan Aviation, connected to alleged assassination logistics; Michael Burke (Farnsworth cousin) is identified as a top prosecutor connected to Tyler Robertson’s defense. - The discussion highlights a potential conflict of interest: Farnsworth’s cousin is the defense attorney for Tyler Robertson, creating a potential conflict, given Farnsworth’s role in the case and as a witness who allegedly handled the crime scene (removing SD cards and contaminating evidence). - Investigative aims and future directions - The team seeks a complete timeline that identifies every participant’s role and actions, both to present to the public and to pursue potential legal recourse. - They propose a documentary or comprehensive public analysis to expose alleged lies and inconsistencies and to push for accountability, either through court proceedings or public discourse. - They anticipate possible outcomes for Tyler Robertson’s case (conviction via public opinion, or a plea deal) and suggest the possibility of deeper CIA involvement in the radicalization and online manipulation processes surrounding the case. - They emphasize the risk to investigators and supporters, including concerns about surveillance, shadow banning, and potential threats or actions against prominent figures involved in the investigation. - Closing sentiment - Colin reiterates the importance of citizen journalism and collaboration with Candace Owens, Sam Parker, Baron Coleman, and others in pursuing truth and accountability. The interview ends with a pledge to continue the investigation and to keep the public informed as new information emerges.

The conversation centers on a controversial, conspiratorial claim that Charlie Kirk’s death was not caused by a rifle shot but by an exploding lavalier microphone containing a shaped charge, a military-style operation allegedly planned and executed with broad involvement and cover-up elements. Key points and assertions heard in the exchange: - The speakers reject the official narrative of a lone shooter, Tyler Robinson, and insist Charlie Kirk was killed by an exploding microphone rather than a 30-06 rifle shot. They describe the supposed weapon as a Rode lavalier microphone whose battery and circuit board were propelled by an internal shaped charge, causing a neck wound and brain damage. - They argue that evidence at the scene—shrapnel, the microphone’s shattered front, a battery and circuit board ejecting from the wound, and a distinctive neck injury pattern—cannot be reconciled with a rifle entry wound. They claim blood on the scene came from Charlie Kirk’s brain, not from the heart or circulatory system, and that the blood’s appearance and pooling indicate immediate brain trauma rather than post-injury bleeding. - There is repeated emphasis on the “shirt deformation,” necklace snapping, and the presence of gas/plume around the collar as indications of a gas-expulsion event consistent with a high-energy explosion near the microphone, not a ballistic impact. - John Bray (Speaker 1) provides technical demonstrations and plans to reproduce the neck wound and shirt deformation via simulations and physical reconstructions. He discusses mapping movement with AI to show that the most intense movement centers around the microphone, and he argues that only a high-energy explosive could generate the observed energy transfer and rapid tissue response. - Bray describes reconstructing the microphone internals in CAD, evaluating the possibility of a shaped charge, and reconfiguring the microphone case to fit a charge without compromising microphone function. He mentions needing access to high-energy explosives and discusses potential sources, such as oil-and-gas fracture practices that employ shaped charges. - The discussion includes descriptions of how the battery and circuit board allegedly exited the neck wound, and how the neck wound’s rectangular shape and delayed bleeding could be explained by a blunt-force impact from a blast, with the battery briefly plugging the wound before exiting. - Bray asserts that the presence of shrapnel from the microphone in the SUV and on clothing, plus the trajectory of a magnetic clasp across the body, supports a single-source energy event around the microphone rather than a rifle shot. He claims the trajectory and timing make rifle-based explanations untenable. - The host and Bray discuss the roles of various people connected to Turning Point USA and alleged participants in a larger conspiracy. They mention Fort Huachuca and UVU as places linked to pre-event planning, and reference meetings and conversations involving high-profile figures and politicians. - There is extensive talk about the public reception and challenges to their theory, including the difficulty of reproducing the exact trauma and wound dynamics, and the claim that mainstream or official narratives suppress or ignore the “truth” they see in the evidence. - Bray mentions ongoing work to replicate the neck wound within about 30 days and notes that reproducing the full explosive event is more complex, requiring careful selection and sourcing of appropriate high-energy materials. He emphasizes that even without replicating the exact explosion, reproducing the neck wound and shirt movement would be strong evidence against the rifle narrative. - The discussion veers into related political and media insinuations, including references to Epstein, the “pedophile cabal,” and Trump as an FBI informant, which are used to reinforce a sense of systemic conspiracy and media distrust. They propose public-facing dissemination of their findings and invite support, including promoting Bray’s work and related self-sufficiency projects. - Toward the end, the speakers discuss the possibility that Tyler Robinson may have been recruited or used as a patsy, with Bray suggesting he might have been promised online notoriety or other incentives, while insisting that Robinson is not the sole killer and that the microphone theory better accounts for the observed evidence. Overall, the transcript presents a tightly woven narrative that disputes the official account of Charlie Kirk’s death, contending that a high-energy explosive integrated into a microphone caused the fatal injury and that the visible physical effects—shirt movement, neck wound, collar gas, shrapnel, and blood patterns—are inconsistent with a gunshot wound. It foregrounds technical schematics, CAD reconstructions, and AI-based motion analysis as the basis for proving the claim, while describing a broader, conspiratorial project to expose a supposed government-orchestrated cover-up.

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.

- Erica Kirkburg has allegedly been seen at Fort Huachuca the day before her husband died. - Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss this sighting, noting a photo of Erica Kirk with a ponytail from her past and claiming she matched the person seen at Fort Huachuca in the lobby the night before, who was with a man present at that meeting. - Mitch, described as a veteran who uncovered US involvement in cartels and was silenced, is claimed to have seen Erica. He is also said to have identified the same person in the lobby as Erica. - Speaker 2 notes another picture of Erica Kirk with a ponytail from the past, asserting the person in that photo matches who was seen at Fort Huachuca, and that the man with Erica was present at the meeting. - Stu Peters is brought in, with Speaker 1 summarizing that, in plain English, Erica is “sketchy.” Stu Peters claims he is 99% sure he saw Erica Kirk at Fort Huachuca with Brian Harpole, congressman Mark Amity, and a group of military officers; Mitch similarly says he is 99% certain of what he saw. - A directive is issued to “Shut it down, Stu,” and a private meeting is referenced where Candace is told to walk back statements and “simmer down,” with a threat that she could end up like Jackie. - The discussion considers the possibility that Erica was in a motel on the eighth and suggests she might have been there for a different reason, noting her mother moved to Arizona because she got involved with the military, which could be unrelated to the meeting on the ninth. - Speaker 5 defends Erica indirectly by saying that just because Erica’s parents have ties to Raytheon and Israel, and her mom moved to Arizona and are seen at Huachuca two days prior to a shooting, does not mean “we” did it. Candace is pressed not to inquire further. - The dialogue shifts to a broader comment about Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk; Speaker 1 questions why the widow of Charlie Kirk would inspire a public nervous breakdown by Ben, and speculates about Israel’s involvement with 9/11. - The conversation includes explicit antisemitic and inflammatory remarks from Speaker 5, including “You stupid little Goyim. How dare you insult my chosenness?” and references to “dark people.” - A Son of the record remark about the slave trade is made, with a claim that “the trading day” landed on a Jewish holiday, affecting operation. - The exchange ends with a directive to Candace to “match” and a retort about choosing a private meeting to stop questions, followed by a return to derisive comments about Jewish holidays.

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.

- I recognized an individual and 'have taken down the cameras minute four after Charlie was shot? The back camera of all the ones when you take the front camera.' - 'I've never seen that. He's never been behind me at an event. He's never been lingering around me at an event.' - I asked about 'his presence behind Charlie' and 'the mysterious phone call ... minute three after Charlie was assassinated.' - He told me explicitly that 'they were trying something new that day. Like, it was something new. Charlie's super ambitious. And on the AV thing, they were trying something new, and they wanted to be able to feed it back instantly to Arizona.' - 'None of it makes sense to me because these events are typically livestreamed. But again, something new. Okay?'

From the outset, one of the speakers says there was a sense that the official narrative about the day didn’t add up, expressing that many Americans feel they were being lied to. The major problem they identify with the assassination narrative includes inconsistencies and unanswered questions rather than acceptance of the official story. Speaker 1 recalls being told Charlie Kirk was shot and initially in critical condition, but notes that the video shows an exit wound and movement of Kirk’s shirt that suggests an impact nearby. With extensive experience around gunshot wounds, they say what they saw didn’t make sense. They reference the FBI’s announcement of a shooter and describe a separate incident involving a person on the roof who allegedly disassembled and reassembled a firearm, aligned a scope, fired a cold bore shot, moved to the roof, and then wrapped the rifle up. They mention texts from the shooter that didn’t sound like a typical 22-year-old and state that these observations raise questions. They say asking questions leads to being torn down or accused of holding conspiracy views, and they specify they aren’t claiming “Israel did it,” but insisting the questions about the event “don’t look good.” They raise specific questions: did the security team remove Charlie Kirk’s lapel mic after the incident and give it to someone else; what happened to the SIM card; did someone take the camera behind him; why was the crime scene contaminated and rebuilt. They admit they don’t know what is true but insist the questions deserve answers. They note that once they question, they’re labeled antisemitic, and they say they didn’t even bring up Israel. They emphasize the personal and national significance of the incident. Speaker 0 mentions a claim that Charlie Kirk was portrayed as Superman, with his body supposedly stopping the 30-odd-six bullet, and asks what would have happened if a 30-06 round hit him. Speaker 1 says it would likely blow his head off and leave remnants of the bullet, arguing that they don’t think such remnants have been found yet. They question why the chair and desk were moved and contend that a forensic expert could determine the shot’s origin, insisting they are simply asking questions. If those questions can be refuted, they would stop asking; but they claim they’re not getting any answers beyond “this is what happened” and being told to “shut up.” Speaker 0 adds that telling someone to be quiet amounts to labeling them antisemitic, and that when the trial comes, they will look like a fool. Speaker 1 says that’s a tactic of the left—when you call them out, they label you a name—and that the right is now doing the same to them.

- Mitch testified that he is 99% sure he saw Erica Kirk at Fort Huachuca with Brian Harpole, congressman Mark Amity, and a group of military officers, and he is taking a great personal risk in going public. - Fort Huachuca is described as the home to the only unmanned aircraft training center in the United States. The discussion connects Fort Huachuca to drone activity and to manned aircraft capable of releasing and retrieving drones, including the Bombardier Global 65,000 military jet with tail number N1098 Lima, which allegedly performed nine-eleven level maneuvers on the day Charlie Kirk was killed. - It is claimed that Fort Huachuca is also the military’s only site in the country that tests EMP blasts, electromagnetic pulse blasts that can disable telecommunications, and that these EMP blasts can be carried out by drones, such as the drone reported around UVU at the time Charlie Kirk was killed, where people on the ground said their cell phone service was disrupted. - The speaker suggests that, given Mitch’s information and previous discussions, the Fort Huachuca angle may be the explanation for what happened, implying that an EMP carried out by a drone from Fort Huachuca could be involved. - Lori Fransvi V is described as the founder of E3 Tech, a defense contractor that claims to produce EMP-proof technology for the military and that earns millions of dollars in government contracts. E3 Tech is said to be closely linked to Israel under the guise of allied defense contracting and cooperation. - It is stated that E3 Tech’s EMP-proof technology would have to pass through Fort Huachuca, making Fort Huachuca the lifeblood of E3 Tech’s work. - The narrative asserts a backstory about Erica Kirk’s mother, Lori Fransky, portraying her as a hardworking single mom who fought and clawed to get by, moving to Arizona because of her work. The speaker says, given what is now known, that Lori Fransky didn’t just have to be in Arizona for work, but had to be at Fort Huachuca, and that Erica also had to be there because of her mother’s defense contract. - It is claimed that Lori Fransby/Fransky’s parents are connected to Fort Huachuca as well: Kent Fransby with ties to Raytheon, Israel, LTD, and the Iron Dome, and involved in defense contracts with the same military base where Mitch says he saw Erica Kirk before Charlie Kirk’s assassination. - The overall assertion is that Fort Huachuca is central to Erica Kirk, to Ken Fransby, to Lori Fransby, and to Erica Kirk’s connection to Charlie Kirk’s assassination.