reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The video host discusses Tyler Robinson’s gag order and argues that nobody is likely to receive a phone call from Tyler Robinson. He says he reached out to Elizabeth Lane, a journalist trying to help Robinson obtain a new attorney, and she told him “absolutely not” that anyone will get a phone call with Robinson. He references Project Constitution claiming “exclusive,” and describes various sensational elements: a “tyler robinson breaks silence then hangs up fast,” a “blurry ghost on video,” a “phone call connected after seven minutes,” and an “audio only clip.” He asserts that Robinson identifies him, then faces “stone walls,” with only family or friends attempting to rally him, and that there are “attorney gag order or handlers warning him to shut the fuck up or else.” He likens the situation to Oswald “pinned in silence forever,” and expresses fear for Robinson’s wife and a lack of say in his own defense, as part of the alleged setup. The host acknowledges some agreement with others about not being able to secure a new attorney and the gag order being unprecedented, but maintains that no one will randomly get a phone call to Robinson. He speculates that Robinson and his family are involved and dismisses the situation as conspiratorial. He mentions the possibility that Robinson will not appear in a courtroom, suggesting a scenario where Robinson is harmed and removed from the case, referencing Epstein, and humorously posits Robinson might be in Israel afterward. The transcript then shifts to an excerpt from a separate segment where an attorney explains gag orders and their scope. Tyler Robinson’s latest court hearing is described as brief; Robinson did not attend in person, listening from the Utah County Jail. Lawyers focus on evidence from the crime scene, and a formal appearance was entered while rights to a preliminary hearing were not waived. Judge Tony Graff issues a gag order to prevent anyone involved from talking about the case to avoid pretrial publicity in a high-profile matter. There is discussion about “thousands of people” potentially affected, noting a large number of witnesses identified or to be identified. The court intends that as witnesses become known, the information will be conveyed to abide by the gag order. The judge emphasizes protecting Robinson’s constitutional rights and the victim’s rights. Outside the courtroom, lawyers declined comment. Robinson is expected back for an in-person hearing on October 30. The host returns to skepticism, claiming Robinson was on campus with multiple cameras, detailing alleged rapid movements and actions during the incident. He argues Robinson will not get a fair trial, predicting his death in a manner akin to “Epstein,” JFK, or MLK vibes, and suggests involvement by someone connected to Israel. He concludes that the case will end without a courtroom appearance and frames the whole narrative as a “joke.”

There is a substantial amount of discovery in this case; it is voluminous to say the least. The discussion touches on several intertwined aspects of pretrial proceedings and the management of information in a high-profile matter. Speaker 1 notes that his lawyers entered their formal appearance and declined to waive the right to a preliminary hearing. In connection with these procedural steps, Judge Tony Graff issued a gag order preventing anyone associated with the case from talking about it. The purpose of the gag order is to avoid pretrial publicity, which is already a significant problem given the case’s massive media exposure involving a high-profile figure such as Charlie Kirk. The judge’s objective, as stated, is to ensure a fairer trial for Robinson by limiting external commentary and potentially prejudicial publicity. The discussion then turns to the scope and identification of witnesses. There is a request for clarification regarding the phrase “all witnesses,” as there are a number of witnesses who have not yet been identified but would likely be used in the state’s case. This issue arose in the context of a large audience—specifically, an event in front of two to three thousand students at Utah Valley University—where the incident or relevant proceedings took place. The parties are in the process of identifying those witnesses, and those individuals are presently unknown. Speaker 2 responds by outlining how the court will handle this as the witnesses become known. The court will require that as each witness becomes known to either side, the information will be conveyed in a way that complies with the gag order. It is acknowledged that there may be many witnesses, and it is not expected that all witness identifications and related disclosures can be completed upfront before the process begins. The approach is to disclose witness information progressively as it becomes available, while maintaining compliance with the order. Speaker 1 reiterates that the judge wants to ensure the protection of Robinson’s constitutional rights as well as the rights of the victim. The exchange underscores a balance between managing a large, potentially unwieldy roster of witnesses and upholding the defendants’ and victims’ legal protections. The discussion closes with a brief, incomplete note from Counselor, indicating ongoing considerations and procedural safeguards as the case progresses.

Lionel Nation (Speaker 1) says he has no knowledge of who Tyler Robinson is and is neutral, but the case sounded odd and is now “imploding” in his view. He outlines two key points: the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk with malice, premeditation, and by a rifle or some weapon, and the jury will weigh the evidence, including a confession to the parents and the gun. He questions the confession to the parents, suggesting it may be shaky because the police or others may have pressured a turn-in. He notes a Discord message confession from Tyler and a “gay lover” with a fuzzy hat, calling it the strangest confession ever, and he speculates about whether the confession was really an attempt to turn himself in due to fear of police action, rather than a true admission. He discusses how the indictment might describe the parents hearing the confession on TV or from a sheriff’s friend, calling that portion “sloppy” and speculating about whether it actually came from Tyler’s own mouth. He then examines the physical evidence: the Mauser 98 rifle in 30-06, the bullet not matching, and a lint brush analogy to illustrate a mismatch. He says the bullet “doesn’t match,” and wonders how this connects to the rifle; he admits uncertainty about the connection. He references gunshot residue (GSR) testing and notes questions about whether any GSR test was conducted on Tyler, and whether the rifle was fired. He mentions the rifle being found after dogs searched and suggests it could have been planted, or that it wouldn’t show residue if not fired. He stresses that the defense argues the government has to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, and that if the bullet, rifle, or DNA evidence is not connected or if there is suppression of evidence, it could undermine the case. Speaker 0 asks about whether the confession is hearsay, and Speaker 1 responds that confessions can be an exception to the hearsay rule because they are admissions, though the indictment may not contain the exact confession. He notes the indictment is bare bones and later details would come out in discovery and deposition, including what the parents actually said. He considers whether the parents’ statements could be contested or reinterpreted, or whether they would claim they misunderstood what Tyler said or were influenced. They discuss the possibility of suppressing the rifle and the confession and how that would impact the case, noting the jury’s potential reaction if the only evidence is a vague confession to parents and an unreliable weapon. Speaker 1 jests about bringing expert witnesses, including a Marine sniper, to replicate the shooting and challenge the narrative, and about medical examiner reports and the possibility that the case could be dismissed if key pieces are not admissible. They contemplate the broader implications: if the government quits the case in the interest of justice, or if deeper investigations or disclosures reveal additional suspects or motivations. They reference Joe Kent’s claim that investigators were hindered, and speculate about the roles of public figures like Cash Patel and Erica Kirk, with Speaker 1 asserting that Erica Kirk’s testimony and role could be pivotal or contested. He contemplates that the case might extend beyond the courtroom into public discourse, including TPUSA involvement and community reactions, and emphasizes that the truth will come from a combination of courtroom proceedings and crowdsourced investigation. Ultimately, Speaker 1 reiterates that the question is whether Tyler Robinson can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that if any link in the chain—confession, rifle, GSR, or other evidence—is not solid, the case could fail. They plan to monitor developments, including the medical examiner’s report, which Speaker 0 notes will likely be released, and suggest that the coming revelations could shape the narrative, for better or worse.

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.”

In the aftermath of a crime, publicity is common, but the judge ultimately decides at trial. The speaker wants a trial in Collin County so Collin County citizens can decide the case. The speaker no longer understands the situation. The individuals involved have had their personal addresses exposed and have received graphic and racist threats. Authorities are limited in what actions they can take, even if they wanted to do more.

The discussion centers on a disturbing Epstein-related document dump from the DOJ, focusing on a diary kept by a girl who was 16 at the time of the abuse. The speakers emphasize the diary as a direct, named account written by the girl, and note that the FBI interpreted her coded entries. They describe the girl as having Mosaic Down syndrome and autism, with the diary mentioning both conditions and the way she was treated by Epstein and his associates. Key details highlighted: - The girl’s background: autism and Mosaic Down syndrome; she writes about autism in the diary and notes how Spirit Airlines was praised for accommodating autistic people. - Targeting and vulnerability: she was considered easier to exploit due to her condition and described as beautiful, with mentions of blonde hair and blue eyes, described in terms akin to a porcelain doll. - Pregnancy and abortion: the diary recounts pregnancies and instances of forced abortions or births, with references to a test showing pregnancy (“two pink lines”) and to being treated as property or an incubator. - Direct quotes from the diary: she expresses a desire to die, references Ghislain Maxwell as someone who sometimes protects her and sometimes does not, and states, “I am nothing but your property and incubator” and “my heart belonged to her.” - A specific segment about a baby: she writes about being able to hold and feed a baby for ten to fifteen minutes before the baby was taken away, and she describes the baby as hers and expresses distress. - Attempts to obtain help: she repeatedly begs to be released from torture and to be saved. Names and individuals mentioned in the diary: - Ghislain Maxwell (Ghislaine Maxwell) is referenced repeatedly as someone who “protects” her at times and is connected to the control she experiences. - Jean-Luc Brunel is named in the diary with a derogatory description and speculation about his motives; the diary notes his suicide in prison. Other figures discussed in relation to the diary: - Leon Black: the diary includes coded references to “Stopped Dead” and mentions meeting Black in New York City in 2000 as Epstein’s “special friend.” The text discusses public reporting (Newsweek, 2023) about allegations against Black, who reportedly paid Epstein $158 million for financial advice between 2012 and 2017, after Epstein’s conviction. The diary entry describes an incident where Black allegedly bit and assaulted the girl, with “blood all over Jeffrey’s carpet,” and Black’s supposed disdain, saying, “Leon can go F himself.” The discussion notes Black’s later withdrawal from Apollo and questions the plausibility of a figure paying that amount for financial advice. - The diary also references Epstein’s associates and a pattern of moving the victim between powerful people. Context and meta-commentary: - The speakers acknowledge that the case details are not proven in court and urge caution about drawing definitive conclusions from diary entries and online reports. They emphasize that some accounts appear credible as direct Epstein victims, while others remain unverified or disputed. - They criticize media and government handling of the Epstein case, suggesting there were long-standing cover-ups and implying involvement of intelligence or state actors, though they reiterate that conclusions about guilt or innocence should await legal proceedings. - They note that the DOJ’s redactions in the Epstein files did not protect the victims’ names as promised, while some alleged predators remained less protected, and they reference a torture video mentioned in emails to Epstein, asking who sent it and what happened to that person. - The conversation ends with broader criticisms of political leadership and the media, arguing that the organization behind the trafficking was extensive and that coverage often centers on famous individuals rather than the organizers and victims.

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.

The video discusses Tyler Robinson’s gag order and the possibility of someone calling him, citing Elizabeth Lane, a journalist trying to help Robinson get a new attorney. Lane says a phone call to Robinson is absolutely not possible. The video references Project Constitution claiming exclusivity and presents sensational claims: “Tyler Robinson breaks silence then hangs up fast,” a blurry “handers threatening him to stay quiet,” a seven-minute connected video call where Robinson’s face is blurred and an audio clip where he identifies the commentator and then “stone walls,” with family and friends trying to rally him and describing a “gag order or handlers warning him to shut the fuck up or else.” The video content includes a “post Kennedy hit” analogy and questions about Robinson’s defense, suggesting he won’t get a courtroom appearance and that the situation resembles a conspiracy. The video also presents a claim that Tyler Robinson’s wife has no say in his defense. Parallel to these claims, the transcript introduces a news-style segment with several speakers (Speaker 1, Speaker 2, Speaker 3) about Robinson’s latest court hearing. The hearing was brief; Robinson wasn’t present, listening from the Utah County Jail. Lawyers focused on evidence from the crime scene. There is a substantial amount of discovery. Robinson’s lawyers filed a formal appearance and did not waive the right to a preliminary hearing. Judge Tony Graff issued a gag order preventing anyone associated with the case from talking about it to avoid pretrial publicity, given the high-profile nature of the case in Utah. The judge aims to protect Robinson’s constitutional rights and the rights of the victim, and the court will rule on how to handle witnesses who have not yet been identified. The witnesses, potentially numbering in the thousands, include individuals who spoke to an audience of 2,000–3,000 students at Utah Valley University. As witnesses become known to each side, the information will be conveyed to comply with the gag order. Outside the courtroom, counsel declined to comment. A further hearing is scheduled in person for October 30. The initial speaker critiques the notion of a fair trial in Robinson’s case, asserting that Robinson was captured on numerous campus cameras during the incident, from entering the roof area to firing a shot and retreating, with a rapid sequence of movements and a subsequent drop-off of the weapon. The speaker argues that Robinson will not reach a courtroom and predicts he will be “Epstein’d” and removed, comparing the scenario to JFK and MLK assassinations and suggesting involvement by someone connected to Israel. The speaker claims that this is a “joke” and believes Tyler Robinson will die before trial, asserting that “nobody’s buying it.” The overall tone blends skepticism about a fair trial with conspiratorial accusations about the handling of Robinson’s case.

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.

It is not unusual for a crime to generate publicity. Ultimately, a judge will decide at the time of trial. The speaker wants this to happen in Collin County and for Collin County citizens to decide this. The speaker no longer understands it. Their personal address has been exposed, and they have received graphic and racist threats. That would not be something that could be done even if desired.

Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1 about serving a restraining order against a newsroom, asking if they’ve ever done so against a journalist. Speaker 1 responds that he isn’t sure, and notes he may have served someone without knowing their occupation. Speaker 0 emphasizes the newsroom’s First Amendment rights, saying it prohibits restraining orders against reporting what people say, calling it a fundamental constitutional right. Speaker 1 explains the document is “a court order signed by a judge Mhmm. Out of Miami. All we're doing is serving to you.” Speaker 0 pushes back, implying the situation is serious and indicating they want to speak with the judge involved. Speaker 1 points to the restraining order and says, “It’s all yours,” and that Speaker 0 is responsible for everything in the restraining order. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 for being there and mentions he will tell the courts about video of a man saying he wants to kill him. Speaker 1 says he has no idea about that claim. Speaker 0 reflects on the state of the country, stating, “One of the problems in this country is that we're in a constitutional crisis,” and shares personal views that they report people breaking the law, and that those people are never held accountable. He says he’s the one who’s brought to court, arrested, and sued, while “the American people are just pissed off.” He acknowledges Speaker 1’s role and expresses being upset and discouraged. Speaker 0 speaks about maintaining hope despite oppression, noting that people look up to him and that he’s the one who keeps getting held accountable. He asks Speaker 1 to understand what he’s saying. Speaker 0 asserts that something must change “not for my sake, but for our children's sake,” and reiterates the constitutional crisis claim. Speaker 0 recognizes that Speaker 1 is simply doing a job but shares his frustration and desperation, asking why he should continue if it only brings pain, punishment, and abuse. Speaker 0 concedes there’s nothing Speaker 1 can do and that they are in this country’s current situation, acknowledging the police presence bringing him to court and questioning why he should keep going.

The speaker addresses accusations against the Tate brothers, stating they are disturbing and for the court to handle. The speaker clarifies that past comments about the Tates referred to their social media presence and potential political involvement in the UK, specifically their vocal opposition to certain things. The speaker emphasizes a separation between admiring their social media presence and condoning the serious accusations against them, including human trafficking and rape. As a lawyer, the speaker refrains from commenting on the specifics of the case but asserts that they do not condone the alleged behavior.

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.

In January 2022, a colleague alerted Speaker 0 that there had been a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 states that “Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies.” Speaker 2 says she has “lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuinely for the best interests of Canadians.” Speaker 3 alleges that doctors “made extra money to push vaccines” and were given a billing code to do it, and that she has “pulled all the billing codes.” Speaker 4 asserts that “They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved,” distributed it to the provinces so that once it’s approved, they can “start jabbing ourselves with it” and “start jabbing pregnant mothers with it.” Speaker 3 questions the necessity of vaccinations: “Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, and then you don't.” Speaker 0 speculates on criminal negligence, saying, “I would suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials.” Speaker 3 notes that it is “highly recommended that pregnant women get their vaccine as soon as possible.” Speaker 0 contends that a narrative was pushed to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 claims wiretapping, harassment, charging, and barring expert witnesses: “They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify.” Speaker 1 accuses police of trying to cover up Canadian babies’ deaths “to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it.” Speaker 4 observes that “The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression.” Speaker 5 discusses vaccination choice versus public risk, remarking, “If you don't wanna get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk,” and claims CBC initially “started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public.” Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of what the is, describing it as “a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada.” Speaker 4 calls this “the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective,” noting that authorities are “not investigating.” Speaker 2 concludes that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, “how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.”

Speaker A: We're on the list because we were at a party or a wedding or something that somebody might have been. That's what I found out anyway. The guy was at Trump's wedding to Marla. Right. Maybe Epstein was there too. Who knows? I don't know. So that means that I'm not guilty, obviously. But these other ones, how are you going to decide who's really guilty and who's not? Speaker B: It's very tricky. I think it no. I think it's it's very I think it's very clear because when you when if you look, you know why my name is there. Because someone was looking for a plane, and that's what people do. They go to all the people who have private planes and say, do you have one? I didn't get on the plane? I didn't know they were looking for a plane. Yeah. I had no idea that the plane that I was supposed to be on was no longer available. So so I'm named in there like Whoopi Goldberg is needs a plane. There are a lot of people—Speaker A: that are named Marilyn Monroe was on the list. Yes. There were plenty of people that were were plenty of people named in in the list that that may have not done anything wrong. Yeah. But I think that there are a lot of people that are on their list that are guilty of wrongdoing. Speaker A: And I have no confidence, unfortunately. It gives me no pleasure to say I— Speaker B: I think they are going to hold on, Joy. I think they are going to they're going to do it like, you know, how you eat around an apple till you get to the core? Yes. I think that's how they're gonna do it. They're gonna eat all this stuff all around here. I need a of gonna get, hopefully, then they'll get to the court.

Social media and journalism can misrepresent the circumstances surrounding an event, and the post seen does not depict the entire incident. What often happens is that social media and mainstream media commentary distort content, which makes it harder to thoroughly investigate the activity and enforce the law. A single post or coverage item can present one side of the story without context, leading to people rushing to conclusions and the narrative “growing legs” that the investigation then has to manage. Speaker 1 asked where the nearest officers were. Speaker 0 answered that in the central business section they were working; both were in vehicles and had to maneuver through traffic. Regarding what exactly was distorted, Speaker 0 explained that social media irresponsibility frequently shows one side of the equation without factual context, and then people run with that, causing the issue to grow larger and become more difficult to manage as part of the investigation.

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

Former Vice President Mike Pence is scheduled to testify, and the night before his testimony, the defendant tweets, "Mike Pence can still fix this. Mike Pence can still do the right thing if he says the right stuff tomorrow." The question is whether this tweet counts as communication with a witness. The response is that it depends on the context. If it's just a statement of political speech on social media, it's likely not considered communication. The district court can only prohibit it if there is compelling evidence of an actual threat to the administration of justice. There can't be a blanket rule prohibiting any mention of Mike Pence.