TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Ms. Green from Georgia states: "the man the 22 year old man, Tyler Robinson, that that murdered Charlie Kirk is not MAGA. His family may be Republican but all of the evidence that is being presented proves that he is a far leftist, very much integrated in online groups that are linked to Antifa. He was in a relationship with a biological male, so called furry, whatever that is, that is transitioning to be a fake woman. That is he was not MAGA, not one bit." She calls it "a complete lie, and it's an insult to every single Republican and person that identifies with those type of politics." She says, "We will not tolerate it," and claims that this language is getting many of us death threats day after day, and led to shootings on the baseball field where Steve Scalise was shot. "This is what led to President Trump nearly being assassinated this past summer. This is what has led to Charlie Kirk being assassinated." And so I just I just wanna give a warning there. "We're not going to tolerate that anymore. Mister chairman You know something else we're not going to tolerate is crime."

Officials say they do not have a motive yet. Law enforcement 'hasn't laid out a direct motive,' though they 'laid out a lot of evidence here of these messages' and 'they said that he was a left wing activist who hated Charlie Kirk.' The panel discusses whether the shooter was a right-wing actor; 'the assassin there was not a right wing assassin acting on a political motive.' They argue violence is partisan: 'It is the left that overwhelmingly celebrates this,' citing Blue Sky as 'a cesspool of leftist celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk,' and polls suggesting Democrats support violence against Musk and Trump. Kamala Harris was accused of funding rioters; 'following the money' for acts of violence is urged. They note past incidents, including the Minnesota murder, calling the perpetrator 'horrible' and saying he should be prosecuted. Senator Ted Cruz closes.

The discussion centers on motive in a shooting. "we don't have a motive yet. We don't know yet." "That's CNN's position. Mean, he just happened to fire the gun in celebration." They note "law enforcement hasn't laid out a direct motive" though "they laid out a lot of evidence here of these messages." The panel debates whether the shooter was "a left wing activist who hated Charlie Kirk." "I believe anyone engaged in acts of violence should be prosecuted" and "we should follow the money. Anyone funding acts of violence, we should." They claim "the left ... overwhelmingly celebrates this," citing "Blue Sky ... leftist celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk" and "over 50% of Democrats saying violence against Elon Musk is justified." They discuss violence on both sides and conclude, "There are deranged lunatics who attack people both right and left." Sen. Cruz, thanks for your time tonight.

Pro gun advocate Charlie Kirk just got shot in the neck at his debate rally. The speaker laments political violence: “I try to avoid American politics... but I've opened X to a bunch of little bitches crying and whinging about how political violence is never the answer.” They claim, “These people are gunning for politics that are inherently violent to its people, to to marginalize people, to people who need access to health care.” The message: this is “the same across the West”—“This isn't just The US. This is England too.” The speaker adds, “I'm sick of this idea that you can't meet violence with violence. If somebody was smacking you... you're going to hit them back. You have to.” They conclude, “These people do not care if you live or die... They want you to die.” “Why is anyone anyone condemning that fucking kill them all kill them all”

"Talk to me about the environment in which a shooting like this happens." "we don't know any of full details of this. We don't know if this was the supporter shooting their gun off in celebration or so. We have no idea about this." "He's been one of the most divisive, especially divisive, figures in this who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups." "I always go back to hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions." "And I think that's the environment we're in, that people just you can't stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place." "And that's the unfortunate environment we're in."

Speaker 0 says, "If you're celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk, you're a bad person. You're going to hell." Speaker 1 adds, "May. Fuck Charlie Kirk," and declares, "The off ramp to the high road is closed," insisting they won't feel guilty about a "bullshit hero" who spread harm. They stress, "This has nothing to do with conservative versus liberal" or with Democrats versus Republicans, and point out the alleged suspect is "an old white guy." They predict media will misframe the event as "an isolated incident by a lone shooter" and that "it's gonna end up being a white guy." They acknowledge sadness with "Abso fucking lutely," but conclude, "However, fuck that guy. God’s timing is always right." "Good day, goofies."

One month ago today, I witnessed my friend of ten years, someone who I considered a brother, a loving husband, a devoted father, a generational leader, get assassinated on a livestream by a left wing radical. Approximately one year ago, I witnessed the president of The United States get shot in the head by a left wing radical who also took the life of a transporter in front of his daughters and wife. Two months ago, Christian children kneeling and praying in a church Were slaughtered. By a left wing extremist. If it's happening every single week, is it that extreme, or has the Democrat party mainstreamed violence as a political tool? Violence has been mainstreamed by the Democrat Party. It is not extremist. Is any Democrat courageous enough to disavow violence? The Trump administration making America safe again. God bless them.

My sympathy to Charlie Kirk's family and to Charlie Kirk who obviously is, you know, become a target for somebody. I don't know whether it's political violence because I don't know who did it. I know they seem to have somebody in custody. But I will say that political violence unfortunately has been ratcheting up in this country. We saw the shootings, the killings in Minnesota. We've seen other political violence occur in other states, and I I would just say it's gotta stop. And I think there are people who are fomenting it in this country. I think the president's rhetoric often foments it. We've seen the January 6 rioters who clearly, you know, have tripped a new era of political violence.

The speaker asserts that “the left wakes up tomorrow and realizes that somebody that agrees with them assassinated the equivalent of Martin Luther King junior” and that “they are celebrating right now.” He credits “Charlie Kirk started a movement, and he led that movement. And that movement changed the election. Without Charlie Kirk, president Trump does not win in 2024.” “The people whose minds he changed... they know it. And you just woke them up.” He calls it “the equivalent of assassinating Martin Luther King, and you'll never be able to live this down.” He warns of “the ones that are celebrating, the ones that are cheering, the ones that are excited and happy.” He asks, “who you are as a person that can allow you to watch somebody get assassinated... knowing his wife and his children were standing there watching, and you're cheering it.” “Because of words that he spoke, ideas that he had, which, by the way, are pretty standard ideas for all of millennia,” and that “you killed him.” “You just created a Martin Luther King, and you created 10,000,000 new Charlie Kirks at the same time.”

Speaker 1 expresses concern about calls framing Trump as a martyr and about retaliatory violence online, fearing escalation as the left is vilified and Democrats blamed by Trump. A video message Trump recorded in the Oval Office moves from condolences to politics: "It's a long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible." The reaction notes this rhetoric aligns with Trump's politics of vengeance and calls out hypocrisy in vilification, citing Charlie Kirk's line: "standing for everything that God hates, claiming that, you know, queer people are defective and dangerous and and should be executed." The discussion concludes that polarizing rhetoric fuels loss of civility and may encourage violence from both sides.

Transcript portrays a speaker accusing leftists of celebrating Charlie Kirk's death and circulating provocative statements about guns and violence. It includes the lines: 'Leftists celebrating Charlie Kirk's death.' 'Watch this.' 'Bye, Charlie Kirk.' 'Like you said, people getting shot and killed for the second amendment is so worth it. I never thought we'd agree on anything.' 'Bye.' 'I just wanna be part of yourself.' 'By the sword, die by the sword.' 'He did say that gun deaths were an acceptable side effect of gun rights.' 'Congratulations to Charlie Kirk for becoming the new poster child for gun awareness and violence.'

"First of all, you know, I'd heard different things about his ideology." "He wasn't a registered democrat or republican." "He may have been a groyker, which is a follower of Nick Fuentes, who's on the right." "But I'll say this, it shouldn't matter." "This has happened to democrats." "This has happened to republicans." "The shooters were on both sides of the extreme." "And so what should matter is that we should all come together to, one, tone down the rhetoric, and two, keep our events safe, and and three, make sure that this doesn't happen again." "And so playing the blame game is not toning down the rhetoric." "Playing the blame game only makes the rhetoric and the problem worse."

I wanna address this idea that both sides just need to lower the temperature. If you've been watching the news or scrolling on social media, you've probably heard this. Both sides just need to lower the temperature. It's bullshit, and I wanna point out exactly why it's bullshit. First, let's take a look at what these Democrat politicians are saying now that their side has committed many acts of domestic terrorism. They say: “Everybody, right, left, center, I don't care what your politics are, has to speak out strongly against it. But look, I think, and I don't know what's happened here, and I don't know about the guns, but we need better laws on guns.” Then: “I I I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be.” And: “There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives. Enemies of the state.” They add: “Show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful.” They state: “There is no both sides in this. Okay? That is what the left has done over about the last week.” They list alleged incidents: “A leftist murdered Charlie Kirk. A leftist shot an ABC affiliate for not airing Jimmy Kimmel. Imagine shooting up a TV studio because Jimmy Kimmel was not being aired. Somebody on the left shot a wedding while yelling free Palestine. Leftists had mass celebrations and celebrated Charlie Kirk's murder in the streets of New York. And today, a leftist shot an ICE facility.” They conclude: “There is no both sides.” “The right is not the one doing this. The far left, the leftist organizers, activists, the people at the root of the Democratic Party are the ones behind this. They have an insane ideology, and they are making people pay for it in blood.”

Speaker 1: "Just because the other side... jokes about the bad things that happened to them, I don't think that makes it okay for us to turn around and do the same." Speaker 0: "No. We need to stop... the left just haven't cucked out enough." Speaker 0: "Trump is fucking insane because he has support from 90% of the conservatives in the Republican party who are entirely un American." Speaker 1: "One person is dead... a swing state voter." Speaker 1: "We don't know what the motivation of the shooter was." Speaker 1: "Just because there is fire burning doesn't give us leave to throw more wood on it." Speaker 0: "Donald Trump wanted absolute criminal immunity." Speaker 0: "Democracy only works when everybody participates." Speaker 1: "I reject this framing entirely."

"the person who shot and killed right wing political commentator Charlie Kirk was like the majority of shooters in America, a young white male from a conservative pro gun religious background." "After being told for two straight days that the left had declared war on America, that the shooter was most likely trans, or in congresswoman Nancy Mace's words, pro tranny." "We still don't know the motivation for the killing, but we will find out more in the coming days." "We have a gun problem in America." "the two children who were shot in school the same day Kirk died were shot by a 16 year old who had been radicalized online by white supremacist groups and had easy access to a handgun." "The day Charlie Kirk died, the Republicans in the Senate voted not to release the Epstein files, something Kirk himself had called for them to do."

"Do you accept, Carrie, that this is a it's not just a one-sided problem? The political violence and violent rhetoric is a problem on both sides of the divide, and it's incumbent on everybody in a position of authority and influence to take the lead here in trying to to just tone things down." "There's been a few cases where it goes from from the right to the left, but there's been an exorbitant number where it's coming from the left to the right. And you can't deny that. If you add it all up, it's just more violence. I mean, president Trump was nearly assassinated. There's another attempt on his life." "The media has to take credit for what they have caused, the chaos they've caused in our country, and they haven't done it. And until they do, they need to be turned off, canceled, muted. They're absolutely abhorrent."

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

He will create a false equivalency between Charlie Kirk and the murder of the Hortmans in Minnesota. That's provably untrue. Melissa Hortman, the Democratic state legislator in Minnesota last three months ago, gunned down by an anti abortion Trump supporter. Yes or no? Wrong. How do I know? Because Vance Bolter, the man who did it, wrote in his letter that it had nothing to do with Trump or being pro life. He blamed Tim Walls. Did you see anyone celebrating the death of them gleefully? Did you see so many professors doing so, showing children a snuff? spitting at their vigil. Joe Walsh will say that this is an overreaction. From the moment Charlie Kirk was assassinated, I said, we don't know who did it. All of this is by design so that the left and spineless right can make this conversation about conservatives responding to the cold blooded terroristic assassination... And maybe if I would have picked up the phone, maybe Charlie would have had a fighting chance.

These people that are now selling t shirts with Charlie Kirk and a bullet wound in his neck, they cannot be negotiated with. You cannot debate with them. You cannot persuade them to vote Republican. You cannot appeal to them. You will never convince them that you're a good person, that you just want the best for everybody. You will never get them to stop hating you. 'These craven losers'—they have to be defeated. You must be destroyed. You must be identified, you must be isolated, and you must be eradicated from our society. Not Democrats, not leftists, not liberals, those people that would celebrate in that moment. That is pure evil, pure malice. There is no charity in a person's heart. We are on the verge of full on political violence and civil war. When they show up to your front door, when they take shots

The panel debates motive, with "we don't have a motive yet. We don't know yet" and "Law enforcement hasn't laid out a direct motive. They've laid out a lot of evidence here of these messages." They cite "they said that he was a left wing activist who hated Charlie Kirk." "Look. I believe anyone engaged in acts of violence should be prosecuted and go to jail." They claim "There has been an enormous amount, and CNN has been guilty of this, of both sides ism." They argue "It is the left that overwhelmingly celebrates this" and "look at Blue Sky and it is a cesspool of leftist celebrating the murder of of Charlie Kirk." The discussion touches polling: "the polls the vast majority of Democrats believe a Republican and a Trump supporter." "Senator Ted Cruz, thanks for your time tonight."

"Charlie Kirk should not have been assassinated." "That's what I said that caused tens of thousands of Democrats to come into my comments and mentions literally hurling homophobic slurs at me." "The ultimate irony is that that's the reason why you justify the assassination of Charlie Kirk was because he was such a bigot and he said all these horrible things, which aren't even real quotes, by the way." "You hate him for things he never even said." "Meanwhile, you guys are actively saying things that are infinitely worse than anything that Charlie Kirk said." "And you guys don't see it." "You don't have that ability to self reflect." "You have no ability to self reflect." "You guys you guys can literally sit there being the nastiest, meanest, most cruel hearted people ever and genuinely believe that you're the good guy because you're doing it to bad people." "Oh, yeah. What is wrong with you?"

This has been coming for a while, and Donald Trump was more direct about it this weekend than ever before. JD Vance and others in Trump's orbit have been advancing this claim since the assassination attempt. Within hours of the shot, the rhetoric started. Vance and others on Twitter and in television interviews were saying things that day, where the virus first germinated in the MAGA lab. It was inevitable that Trump would come to that view. It puts the lie to the notion that the left, Democrats, Kamala Harris, are germinating political discord, division, and dangerous incitement to violence. Some people, maybe many of the most important people in the Republican party, are not merely campaigning on division and hatred but are actively rooting for and inciting a split in the country. There are people in the conservative ecosystem who've now been very explicit about wanting that. It is obvious what the Republican ticket imagines happening and what they're preparing for in the wake of a possibility that they lose this election on November 5th.