reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The discussion centers on lawsuits against media outlets, specifically "60 Minutes," for alleged deceptive editing of an interview with Kamala Harris. One speaker claims the show deceptively edited Harris's answers, while the other expresses concern about the chilling effect of lawsuits on media freedom, regardless of any one case. One speaker argues that if media organizations make defamatory and factually incorrect statements, lawsuits are a valid recourse, especially when bias is suspected. The other speaker counters that powerful figures suing media can intimidate them, pointing to Trump's criticisms of media outlets and threats against judges. He suggests using platforms to rebut incorrect information rather than resorting to lawsuits, as Trump himself often does. The speaker also notes that rebuttals may not reach the same audience as the original claims.

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 claims to have explosive, verifiable information that can publicly challenge the Zionist-occupied Trump administration to deny it if untrue. They urge Kash Patel to deny the claim if it is false, noting that the information is highly relevant. They credit Mel, who they say was early with the reporting, and say they had heard rumors but sought verifiable proof before going on the limb to assert authenticity. The core assertion is that there were 12 Israeli cell phones on the ground at Utah Valley University on the day Charlie Kirk was assassinated. The speaker clarifies that these were not VPNs routed through Israel, but 12 personal cell phone accounts opened in Israel. They claim these accounts were on the ground at Utah Valley University on September 10, the day Charlie Kirk was shot. The speaker states that the NSA knows this, Kash Patel knows this, and people in the current administration know that too, and are desperate to keep the information from the public. They question why the administration would want to suppress the information and why it would spook those at the top, suggesting that if there is nothing to hide, there would be nothing to hide. To anticipate counterarguments, the speaker plays devil’s advocate, noting that perhaps the cell phones belonged to exchange students or Israelis touring UVU that day, or that 12 American students had Israeli-based cell phones after returning from a summer abroad and wished to keep them running in Utah. They acknowledge they do not know the answer and express a desire to know, emphasizing the need to uncover why this information is being concealed and who those 12 Israeli cell phones belonged to. Throughout, the speaker refrains from evaluating the claims’ truth and simply presents the asserted facts and questions, urging accountability and transparency regarding the supposed Israeli cell phone presence and its connection to Charlie Kirk’s assassination. They close by reiterating their dislike of secrets, especially when they pertain to the public figure’s death.

The video centers on Candace and a claim about Egyptian private military contractors being flown to America on a top-secret mission and landing at a private military base in Utah on the day of the Charlie Kirk assassination. The presenters show photos of private military subcontractors and describe them as the “baddest, hardest, most battle trained” soldiers, implying their involvement is significant to the Charlie Kirk case. They question why Egyptian military contractors would be in Provo, Utah, and why they did not return to Cairo, asking who they were planning to “take out next.” One speaker states that, according to a person close to someone who was aboard the flight, the aircraft did not simply stop in Utah for routine servicing. They claim the plane carried military subcontractors and that these individuals were dropped off in Provo, yet did not reboard for Cairo. They assert the flight departed Provo on September 10 and returned to Cairo on September 11, with allegedly missing people from the plane. The speaker emphasizes that the flight radar investigation shows a Cairo-to-Paris-to-France-to-Bannat, North Dakota route around that period, and notes that on September 10 the plane departed Provo at 07:14 AM local time. They insist the people aboard the plane were not the same individuals who later appeared on the flight’s return. The speaker contends this information was provided by a female source who knows an Egyptian military subcontractor personally. They acknowledge she did not claim the mission was related to Charlie Kirk, only that it was a top-secret operation, possibly a discreet joint military exercise, so hidden that people were urged to ignore it. The speaker describes the revelation as terrifying yet galvanizing, claiming it prompted bravery and a push to root out perceived evil in society. The discussion then shifts to Kash Patel, referencing a Daily Mail article about him shutting down a Charlie Kirk foreign intelligence probe in a feud with Trump’s counterterror chief. The speaker suggests Patel’s stance raises questions and asserts that Patel’s approach contrasts with what they would expect if there were genuine efforts to investigate Charlie Kirk’s murder, noting that Trump and Trump family members would presumably be involved in questioning the narrative. They criticize Patel for discouraging further inquiry, comparing him to Dr. Fauci in his alleged resistance to investigation. The speaker challenges Kash Patel to dispute the claims, asking him to confirm whether the plane truly came for routine servicing or for a discreet mission, and to disclose the truth about who was aboard and why they were in Provo, Utah.

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.

Speaker 1 argues there are several issues with Brian Harpel’s narrative. First, a records request found 20 911 calls related to Charlie Kirk’s death and the Utah Valley University shooting; none of the calls came from Brian Harpold or anyone on his security staff. 911 does not have any record of their call, which is presented as problem number one. Second, the question is who could have called 911 if the five men in the car describe their actions during the drive to the hospital. Brian Harpole had dropped his phone at UVU, and Frank Turick’s phone was stuck on FaceTime the whole time, according to him. The listener is invited to determine who possibly made the 911 call, when it was made, and why Harpole would claim a call was made if it did not occur. Speaker 2 recounts the drive to the hospital: they ran toward the security team, got into the SUV with Justin driving, Dan in the front with GPS, Rick to the left holding Charlie’s head, and Brian at Charlie’s feet. Charlie is described as so large that the door wouldn’t close, prompting commands to “go, go, go.” The group heads to the hospital, driving without lights or sirens, breaking intersections, and beeping the horn. An ambulance is described as approaching from the venue; they decide to continue. Justin is praised as a trained driver, using exact directions for turns. Rick and the speaker are in the back; Charlie’s left leg is down in the door, preventing the door from closing. The speaker is on their knees doing medical care with Rick and Charlie’s life in danger, shouting and performing CPR. Speaker 3 adds details: they open the back door, drag Charlie in, Justin drives 60–100 mph, Charlie’s tallness prevents the door from closing, and they continue driving. The speaker describes continuing medical care in the car, including stopping to perform CPR, and the door not closing because of Charlie’s size. They reach the hospital, put Charlie on a gurney, and wheel him inside. The staff are described as unaware of their arrival, since they had called 911 but arrived in bloodied condition. The speaker notes his phone came out during unloading, and that he had been FaceTiming his wife and later Spencer during the event. He explains that he left the phone in his back pocket once the shooting occurred. Speaker 1 concludes: Turick’s phone was stuck on FaceTime and did not make any calls; Rick Cutler was praying and cradling Charlie’s head, and holding Harpole to keep him from flying out of the SUV while tending to Charlie. Brian Harpole did not make any call and did not use his own phone since it was left at UVU. Justin, the driver, drove aggressively through intersections, while Dan Flood directed from the passenger seat. The question remains whether any 911 calls were made during the high-speed conveyance, given 911 calls last 30 seconds to 2 minutes, and whether anyone had a free moment to place a call. The speaker questions if a 911 call was made at all, and why Harpole would misremember a 911 call if none occurred. The hospital’s lack of notification suggests the 911 call may not have been successful, or may not have been made, and the speaker commits to continuing the investigation, asking for input on what happened to the missing 911 call.

The speaker alleges that people in TPSA are trying to discredit anyone who questions “their narrative,” specifically related to Charlie Kirk’s assassination, and claims that ongoing behavior “reinforced the fact that you’re part of the coverup.” They then focus on an “endowment” described as one of the “shadiest” entities in Turning Point’s structure. The speaker says Turning Point has “like six entities” and that these entities allow Turning Point to move money while “water down any sort of forensic accounting.” They claim Turning Point Endowment has zero employees, no websites, and supports no programs, while holding $69.9 million “as of their 990 filing in 2024.” The speaker says they traced every dollar in and out of the endowment and that, for years from 2017 through 2024, the endowment’s money comes from Turning Point USA, with “zero outside donors” providing funds. The speaker says TPUSA reported giving money to the endowment as one of its mission goals, and characterizes an endowment as a “war chest” to move money in during a “bad year,” which the speaker says occurred when TPUSA had deficits in 2023. The speaker claims the endowment owns real estate connected to Turning Point: they say it owns 4930 East Beverly Road (also identified as Turning Point Action’s address), 4940 Beverly Road (Turning Point USA’s address), and that the endowment’s letterhead address lists 4950 (next door). They state that Turning Point USA “deeded its own building to the endowment” as a “charitable contribution,” and that in 2021 it bought in cash the political arm’s real estate. They add that “the mystery donor is themselves,” which they say they found through deed filings. They describe a “rent math” analysis: the speaker says that for three straight years, Turning Point’s charitable program donation to the endowment was for “occupancy and depreciation” and the upkeep of Turning Point’s own buildings, matching dollar-for-dollar. They state that the endowment has not had an independent audit and that, on their 990 forms, the relevant audit box is “always no” for the endowment; they add that TPUSA was only “no in 2024.” They provide figures: four years of building costs totaling $949,000, with rent collected back totaling $232,000, and claim that the remaining amount went to leasing those buildings “to themselves, and the political arm.” They also say the rent line lists rent as zero and that the speaker characterizes this as “penalty of perjury” if false. The speaker further claims timing and purchasing activity: on August 1, 2025, they say Turning Point Endowment bought a third building for $3.85 million, which they claim would not show up on 990s until 2027, and they say the purchase occurs “40 days before Charlie Kirk is assassinated.” The speaker also alleges that on August 1, 2025, a “Doge-like assessment” was requested 30 days before the assassination. They claim additional financial activity: in 2023, when TPUSA had a deficit and assets fell 41%, the endowment sent “500K” while putting “some $9 million” into private equity, which they say cannot be exited for 10 years. They state the private equity fund names and fund managers are “secret,” and claim $565,000 was paid in investment fees over four years to someone not named on other forms. They also describe March 2025 filing activity: they say three Turning Point entities filed within a 72-hour period, and that “buried inside of that” the endowment “became five,” adding new names including Justin Olson (CFO, previously Arizona State Corporate Commissioner) and Frank Carney. They conclude: “This endowment, in my opinion, exists to hide money.”

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.”

Representative Swallow, who was not injured on January 6th, is the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit against Donald Trump. The lawyer representing Trump questions if Swallow's chances of success in the lawsuit would improve if the proceedings against Trump are successful. Swallow denies this. The lawyer also highlights that Swallow and other politicians have used the word "fight" in their speeches without advocating for physical violence. The lawyer presents tweets from Swallow's Twitter account as evidence. Swallow confirms writing the tweets but clarifies they were metaphorical and not calling for violence. The lawyer then discusses other tweets from Swallow's account related to the January 6th investigation. Finally, the lawyer questions Swallow about tweets from Trump that were not shown during the proceedings.

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.

- "Robinson didn't kill Charlie Kirk." - "Charlie Kirk's Israeli security detail killed Charlie Kirk and Charlie Kirk's assassin is caught on tape." - "That is the explosion from Charlie Kirk's lavalier lapel mic." - "First we had exploding pagers, now we have exploding mics." - "That proves that all of the activity came from the mic that Charlie Kirk was wearing." - "That's the assassin." - "This guy, brown shirt guy, he's the assassin." - "He pushes the detonator." - "We have video now from destiny that shows the handoff of this remote detonator." - "Tyler Robinson did not kill Charlie Kirk." - "If you want security, the Israelis know what they're doing." - "But in no way did that trigger man, that assassin, the brown shirt with the sunglasses act alone."

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 speakers recount the moments surrounding Charlie Kirk being shot and highlight the behavior of Mikey McCoy, Charlie Kelley’s chief of staff. The account begins with a father describing his son’s roles: Justin is the chief financial officer, and Mikey is the chief of staff. He recalls the instant Charlie was shot: “Charlie’s been shot in the neck. Please call every pastor and pray.” He notes that Charlie was directing at the time, with blood all over him. Speaker 1 focuses on Mikey’s actions during the incident. He notes that Mikey is still there, phone in hand, texting, talking, then putting the phone away. He points to the person Charlie is arguing with, Hunter Kozak, and emphasizes what the video shows about Mikey: he seems to see Charlie get hit and “simply walks away.” Mikey later reappears on the other side of the tent, not running but walking. The account questions whether Mikey might be on the phone, though it isn’t certain. Security guards are described as doing their part, while Mikey is shown “walking, like getting far away from everything.” The narrative suggests Mikey turned his back on the incident after it happened. Speaker 2 names Mikey McCoy, Charlie Kirk’s chief of staff and friend, describing what he did or did not do during the morning. The speaker asserts that Mikey “spent the whole morning dutifully and loyally by Charlie’s side filming everything,” but then “abandoned Charlie in the very instant Charlie was killed.” The key questions posed are whether Charlie was actually dead, whether he needed help, and whether Mikey rushed to aid him or instead got his camera out. The speaker concludes that, according to the account, “Mikey McCoy didn't care about Charlie Kirk at all and just left him behind.” In summary, the described sequence presents Mikey McCoy as being present with Charlie prior to the shooting, then engaging in texting and moving away, appearing on the far side of the tent, and ultimately turning his back on Charlie after the incident, with the claim that he abandoned him as Charlie passed. The recounting is reinforced by a second speaker who reiterates that Mikey did not assist Charlie and appeared to prioritize other actions over Charlie’s welfare.

Speaker 0 contrasts what is happening with a reference to Looney Tunes and uses that imagery to support a point about antisemitism accusations. They claim that some people who are accused of antisemitism are indeed antisemitic, describing them as “smart people asking questions like me,” while others who have been kicked out of Daily Wire are “just crazy.” They invoke Ben Shapiro to support their view, saying the situation proves he was right about these dynamics. They label a certain person as a “faux sophisticate,” agreeing that this label nails the situation. The speaker emphasizes that the idea of someone being an “antisemite” can be connected to what they view as a pattern or pattern-matching of behavior, and they repeat the phrase “A faux sophisticate” to underscore this point. Speaker 1 expands the discussion to the far right and Charlie Kirk, noting that there were plenty of people on the far right who disliked Charlie. They mention Gruyper groups (referred to as Gruyper’s) and state that they literally declared a “Gruyper war on Charlie Kirk,” arguing that he wasn’t radical enough for them and that this intolerance reflected a demand for more extreme rhetoric. The speaker reiterates a point they had previously made to Bill Maher, describing how the identification of Charlie Kirk as hateful fits into a broader framework. They pose a question about whether the Gripers could be the source of any negative assessment, suggesting that the opposite claim—that the Gripers were responsible—could theoretically be possible, though they consider it unlikely. The speaker then explains the evidence they cited: contemporaneous conversations the shooter had with family in which they called Kirk hateful. They argue that this shows that Kirk being labeled “hateful” is part of a left-wing matrix of thinking, and they articulate the idea of a “griper matrix” that asserts that Charlie Kirk should have been more hateful toward Jews to be acceptable to them. The central thrust is that the Gripers’ expectations for greater hatefulness toward Jews would align with their approval, implying that if Kirk had exhibited more virulence toward Jews, he would have been more favored by that faction. Overall, the dialogue weaves together critiques of alleged antisemitism accusations, the behavior and labeling of Charlie Kirk by far-right groups, and the contention that certain factions on both sides frame acceptability in terms of extremity toward Jewish targets, using the shooter’s reported conversations as a focal point for claims about how Kirk is perceived.

"the time stamp is 12:44. Charlie Kirk was shot at 12:23." "So roughly about twenty minutes after that, he pulls in here, sits in the car park for a bit, and then drives out and then drives out of the car park and towards UVU." "This white car was parked up front closer to the camera as as we can see, and we can play this again." "the officer apparently did not have his body cam footage on." "Prosecution has a weak spot because that the messages, the the trans boyfriend messages, they don't have time stamps." "the gun that they showed initially, the picture New York Post published this. FBI never published a gun before that, right?" "This is not even the rifle." "composite stock on it." "There is enough camera footage now, somebody was telling me, and enough to for them to do, like, a ballistic sound. Acoustic forensics." "it sounds like a muffled, not like a 30 out six." "weak reload." "double DHT." "they're tainting the jury pool basically."

The conversation centers on Brian Harpole’s defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens and the intricate legal and political connections alleged to underpin it. Key points: - The lawsuit: Speaker 0 notes that ex Charlie Kirk security chief’s defamation suit against Candace Owens involves detailed accusations, and that Harpole’s legal team is connected to Dillon Law Group. The theme is that the suit represents a coordinated strategic response rather than a simple claim of harm. - Law firm and leadership: The law firm handling Harpole’s case is Dillon Law Group. Its founder is Harmeet K. Dillon, who Speaker 0 claims is associated with the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and has shifted to “Israel Rights Division.” Dillon Law’s inception is said to have occurred in 2006 in San Francisco, with a mission to provide strategic responsive credit. - DOJ and political ties: The discussion emphasizes a DOJ connection, suggesting Harmit Dillon’s influence persists through her official role and leave status, and alleging she advocates for stricter anti-Semitism speech laws that could silence journalists like Candace Owens. - Daily Wire and personnel connections: The same Dillon Law Group previously represented The Daily Wire in a two-year arbitration, and the firm also hired Jacob Roth, an Orthodox Jewish attorney with civil rights expertise, who is Ben Shapiro’s brother-in-law (married to Abby Shapiro). This is framed as a “Shapiro tie” and a possible “attack by proxy.” - Implications of the family and DOJ ties: The argument posits that Ben Shapiro’s relationship to the firm and to Harpole’s attorney (Zachary Stoner, who allegedly worked for Dillon Law Group) creates a network linking high-level DOJ influence, family ties, and Conservative media figures to launch a legal offensive against Owens. - Discovery and evidence: A central theme is that discovery will allow Candace Owens and her team to obtain material such as video footage, text messages, and deposition testimony from involved parties. Speaker 2 discusses the potential to compel deposition of individuals like Terrell Farnsworth, Mikey McCoy, and Erica Kirk, and to obtain their text messages to challenge the “no conspiracy” claim. - The alleged purpose of the lawsuit: Candace Owens suggests the filing is a PR stunt used to place claims in a legal document as facts, inviting people to quote the lawsuit as truth. The claim is that Harpole’s lawsuit is used to push back on Owens, with the suggestion that it is intended to chill free speech. - Specific claims in the complaint: The complaint accuses Owens of describing Kirk’s security team as shady and of disseminating a credible tip about Harpole’s attendance at a classified meeting with senior government officials at a US Army base (Fort Huachuca). Owens reportedly could not confirm the report, and there was an implication that Harpole’s presence at such a meeting is false. - Admissions and counterpoints: Owens had reached out to Harpole prior to featuring Mitch Snow on her podcast, attempting to verify details and seek comment. Harpole allegedly warned that Owens would be sued if she interviewed Snow. The discussion notes that a deposition could verify whether Mitch Snow’s claims about seeing Harpole and Erica Kirk at Fort Huachuca are accurate. - Overall assessment by participants: The speakers see the lawsuit as a high-stakes move leveraging billionaire backing (alluding to Alex Jones’ lack of billionaire backers) to fuel the confrontation, with a focus on the discovery process as a potential reveals of new evidence. - Additional points: The complaint asserts that Owens’ statements harmed Harpole’s professional reputation and business, and that his claims of emotional distress were caused by Owens’ public remarks. It also questions why Harpole did not publicly respond to Owens’ inquiries about his whereabouts and activities on the contested dates.

The transcript describes a complex web of legal and professional connections surrounding Candace Owens and Brian Harpole. It starts by noting that Harpol, the security firm Harpole uses against Candace, employs Ben Shapiro’s brother-in-law. It claims this is part of a broader mix of interests involving the Department of Justice (DOJ) and prominent conservative figures, creating a “rabbit hole” of ties. The argument presented is that Brian Harpole’s lawsuit against Candace appears to be a coordinated strike. Key connections highlighted include: - The lead attorney for Brian Harpole, Zachary Stoner, works for the De Leon Law Group. The firm’s leader is Harmeet Dhillon, who is currently serving as Trump’s assistant attorney general for civil rights at the DOJ. Although Dhillon is on leave from the firm, her influence is described as pervasive, especially in advocating stricter anti-Philadelphia speech laws that are alleged to threaten journalists like Candace. - A Daily Wire connection is noted: Candace had previously been represented by the same law firm (De Leon Law Group) during a lengthy arbitration battle against her. The narrative suggests these lawyers know Candace and are returning for more. - The De Leon Law Group also hired Jacob Roth, an orthodox Philadelphia attorney specializing in civil rights. The “Shapiro tie” is that Roth is Ben Shapiro’s brother-in-law, married to Ben’s sister Abby Shapiro. This is framed as an “attack by proxy,” with Ben Shapiro portrayed as a former employer who has allegedly harassed and stalked Candace for years. - There is an appearance by Jacob Roth himself, introducing a personal testimony about troubling issues, reinforcing the network of connections. The speaker suggests deeper connections beyond the law firm, implying a broader pattern of influence and collaboration. A comparison is drawn to “lawfare” cases against a president, with a DOJ member stepping down to work in the same space, which the speaker finds suspect. Overall, the transcript posits that Candace’s adversaries are intertwined through a network of a security firm, a law group, family ties (notably Ben Shapiro’s brother-in-law), and DOJ-aligned figures, creating a coordinated dynamic against Candace.

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 speaker claims that individuals from the Biden administration would call and berate their team about certain documents. The speaker says that emails related to this are published. The speaker states that their team refused to take down content that was true, including a meme about potential class action lawsuits related to COVID vaccines. They also refused to remove humor and satire. The speaker alleges that President Biden made a statement suggesting "these guys are killing people," after which various government agencies began investigating their company, which they describe as "brutal."

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss contemporary conspiracy theories surrounding Charlie Kirk. They state they do not believe the theory that Jews killed Charlie Kirk and, as it stands right now, think it was Tyler Robinson. They both agree on this point regarding the alleged killer. Speaker 1 shifts to addressing Nick Fuentes, noting they weren’t going to come for him until he called Ian Carroll “retarded.” Ian Carroll allegedly appeared in a livestream pleading with Speaker 0 to join in on the conspiracy. Speaker 1 repeats the insult, saying, “If you think that I feel sorry for you because you are retarded.” They challenge the credibility of claims about a “furry trans lover” storyline, asserting that discord’s own statements say the furry trans motive screenshots didn’t come from their servers. The discussion moves to alleged forensic and investigative inconsistencies. They reference a father identifying his son from a grainy rooftop silhouette before police have real evidence, and claim that the FBI has four-k footage showing the shot but left that part out. They question the ballistic details: a .30-06 round, known for blowing through concrete blocks and obliterating bone, allegedly gets stopped by Charlie’s “Superman like neck.” They note the absence of visible ballistic mess or blood spatter and question how bulletproof the spine would be. They claim the rifle was “disassembled within seconds after taking the shot” yet was found “fully assembled in the woods.” They state that the shooter stuffs the rifle in his pants to jump off, which clashes with the rifle being recovered fully assembled. They express skepticism about the overall narrative, suggesting that Nick Fuentes may be paid off or had his career threatened over this issue, and conclude that whatever the truth is, it is “not a good look” for Nick Fuentes. In summary, the speakers reject the claim that Jews killed Charlie Kirk and attribute it to Tyler Robinson; they criticize Nick Fuentes for engaging with conspiratorial narratives, challenge the veracity of related forensic and anecdotal claims, highlight inconsistencies in timelines and weapon handling, and suggest possible financial or career motive implications, framing the situation as damaging for Nick Fuentes.

I want to address the lawsuit that has been brought to my attention. I want to make it clear that it did not happen. I don't remember ever meeting this person, and I would never harm anyone. This is not who I am. The credibility of the person filing the lawsuit is questionable, as they have filed many lawsuits and written a book on how to win them. I have been in public life for almost 40 years, and people know my character. I would never do anything to harm someone. Right now, we need to stay focused and let go of distractions.

- 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.

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.