reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Aladdin is discussing Candace Owens and her husband, making several pointed claims about connections and motives. He notes that Candace Owens’ husband is “MI five asset” and emphasizes that he did not say MI six, labeling it as an interesting distinction. He references a 2022 period when there were multiple indications involving her husband, mentioning a firm he was involved with “back in England,” and compares it to Wall Street. The firm is described as “Avenger Capital Fund” or similar, and he claims her husband is “heavily funded by actual other Jewish firms.” From this, he implies that when Candace Owens speaks out, “let's peel off the onion and who's your husband is,” leading to his assertion about her identity and motivations. He characterizes Owens as a “very vile person” who was shunned from the conservative movement and who now spreads conspiracy theories. He recounts a progression of Owens’ claims and videos, noting she started with “the personal guards of Charlie Kirk,” then shifted to other topics, including an Egyptian plane incident with “three Egyptian officers dropped off in Utah” who supposedly didn’t return to the plane, followed by claims about “12 Israeli cell phones.” He mentions that prior to this, there was confusion around “Mikey McCoy” from Tony Point USA, criticizing the lack of evidence and the rapid jumping from one conspiracy to another. He states that Owens released text messages between her and Charlie Kirk, calling them “fake as fuck” or arguing that even if real, they do not prove anything; he suggests the release is a nuisance rather than substantial evidence and critiques Owens’ behavior as “vile.” He adds an impression that Owens’ marriage was arranged for clout, stating, “the only reason they got married is an arranged marriage,” and that he knew her husband. On a broader personal note, he shares his background, saying he grew up in Iraq and emphasizes a controversial, provocative stance: “Palestinians, we call them parasites,” describing a harsh perception of Palestinian people and their influence. He clarifies he is not pro any specific side but expresses pro-American sentiment, and he reiterates his focus on documenting the war in Ukraine, where he is currently based. He mentions a pin post on his profile for GoFundMe donations to support his journey to Ukraine, Israel-Palestine, and Iraq. He closes with a light moment about a coin-toss game among the group, joking about a game with soap, lampshade, and quarters, while noting a temporary drop of a cohost and promising to listen.

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 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.

Aladdin and another participant discuss a string of controversial claims and conspiracy theories centered around Candace Owens and her husband, interwoven with personal updates and on-the-ground reporting plans. Aladdin introduces the topic by noting a disagreement with Zanny and invites Candace to continue, while also acknowledging support for a post in the nest. The conversation then moves to Candace Owens and her husband, described as a “MI5 asset” (a claim linked to his alleged background and funding). Speaker 1 identifies himself as a former intelligence officer who is currently in Ukraine, documenting the war to provide factual on-the-ground reporting and planning to visit Israel, Palestine, and Iraq to document events. He mentions a GoFundMe-style pin post on his profile for donations to his journey and stresses his aim to deliver factual reporting without spin. The discussion shifts to Candace Owens, whom Speaker 1 calls an “absolute fraud.” He cites “multiple indications back in 2022” related to Owens’s husband and references a firm he allegedly worked with, comparing it to a Wall Street-like operation in England. Specific firms mentioned include Parley or Glorify, and Avenger Capital Fund, suggesting that Owens’s husband is heavily funded by Jewish firms. When Owens speaks publicly, Speaker 1 argues, it appears to be designed to reveal a hidden network, prompting Aladdin to suggest peeling back layers of her narrative. The consensus among the participants is that Owens has become a prominent conspiracy disseminator who has shifted focus over time. The conversation traces Owens’s move from reporting about Charlies Kirk’s personal guard to broader conspiracies, expressing skepticism about the authenticity of texts Owens released between herself and Charlie Kirk. They describe those messages as not proving anything substantial about an assassination plot, though they debate their authenticity. The group notes Owens’s pattern of jumping between conspiracies without credible evidence, labeling some of her content as vile. Speaker 1 reveals that he knows Owens’s husband and alleges their marriage was arranged for clout, comparing the dynamic to a modern version of a high-profile “arranged marriage.” The discussion turns personal as Speaker 1, who grew up in Iraq, shares a harsh view toward Palestinians, calling them “parasites” and characterizing Palestinian behavior as spreading “cancer with their victimhood.” This remark is cited as part of the broader atmosphere of inflammatory rhetoric surrounding Owens and related narratives. Despite expressions of support for America, Speaker 1 emphasizes his Ukraine mission and reiterates his invitation for donations to fund his reporting. Toward the end, the group veers into light banter about a coin-toss game, humorously referencing heads for soap and tails for a lampshade, then moving through a quick aside about quarters and college games before returning to the ongoing discussion.

The transcript describes a dispute surrounding Candace Owens and a lawsuit that mentions her in connection with attacks on Jane Doe. It states that Candace Owens spent an entire YouTube episode in 2023 smearing Jane and Mary Doe and repeated the claim that Jane was responsible for Dustin Milner. It also says Candace repeated one of the Tate family’s allegations that Jane Doe had previously falsely accused a man, Keith Fox, who is currently serving a prison sentence for male two minors, one of which was Jane Doe. The transcript notes that Milkbar TV edited Candace’s video to beep out Keith Fox’s name to protect his identity while she repeated Jane Doe’s full legal name over more than 100 times during the video. It adds that Milkbar edits out Jane’s name when Candice mentions it in this edit. It mentions an unrelated line about a yoga instructor under arrest charged with having an inappropriate relationship with a student. In the first case described, a man is unnamed in the transcription for ethical reasons because the allegations involved a minor at the time. The transcript explains the man was a yoga instructor who had a 15-year-old student, and that the teen’s mother hired a private investigator to follow her daughter and Fox. The investigator observed the teen at Fox’s home engaging in “the touching one another in a manner.” The teen talked to detectives and provided details; Delray Beach police indicated the relationship began with a close relationship between a teen student and her yoga instructor, with Fox making a few inappropriate comments, escalating to serious allegations. Police stated Fox touched her in his car and offered a Thai massage, and there was concern about other potential victims. The courts found that the teen was having relations with him, and he was sentenced to twenty-four years in prison. Delray Beach police arrested Fox on a charge of battery on a victim over 12 years old; he remained in jail after a judge denied him bond. The transcript reiterates that the first case involves a man not named due to the minor involved, and asserts that the courts found the relationship occurred. It also emphasizes that Candace Owens named Jane Doe extensively while protecting Keith Fox’s identity in the cited video. The closing line asserts, “Candace Owens is a vile, disgusting freak.”

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.

James O'Keefe is suing Twitter for defamation after confronting a Facebook executive. He highlights a video showing CNN engaging in similar actions. The lawsuit claims that Twitter made false statements about O'Keefe and his organization, Project Veritas, which is known for its conservative activism.

James O'Keefe is suing Twitter for defamation after they made factual statements about him. This situation arose following a confrontation with a Facebook executive. Concerns about doxing led to the removal of a video, despite similar content being aired by CNN. The discussion also touches on Project Veritas, a conservative activist organization, and the implications of their actions, including accusations of fake donations. Ultimately, the truth and evidence surrounding these claims are called into question.

- The speaker describes receiving an email in Charlotte about a retraction demand that turned out to be a notice of an impending lawsuit by Brian Harpole. Harpole’s lawyer stated they would file the suit in four days, making the email feel unusual because there was no prior communication or retraction request. - The speaker notes that Harpole’s demand appears poorly organized and argues that Harpole had already prepared the lawsuit before sending the notification. The speaker also points out a coincidence: Harpole is using the same lawyer who previously represented The Daily Wire in arbitration against the speaker. - Harpole’s grievances in the lawsuit, according to the speaker, include: maligning him by stating that not having an ambulance on standby at an event is inappropriate and demonstrates professional incompetence; alleging that the speaker implied Harpole and his team had insider knowledge of Charlie Kirk’s assassination; and accusing the speaker of defaming Harpole by suggesting he failed to render effective aid with a medical bag and by accusing him of lying about drone availability. - The speaker argues that “competence” is a matter of opinion and contends that a security team paid millions should have had an ambulance on standby, especially when Charlie Kirk texted the team the night before that he thought he could be killed. The speaker defines criminal negligence and distinguishes it from civil negligence, insisting that Harpole’s claims about criminal negligence are unfounded in this context. - Harpole also claims the speaker implied he had insider knowledge of Kirk’s assassination, though the speaker contends the relevant episode referenced Terrell Farnsworth and Mikey McCoy, not Harpole, and clarifies what was actually stated in the episode. - The speaker addresses another claim about Harpole’s medical bag and drone usage. He asserts that Harpole’s statements about the medical bag and drones conflict with other testimony (including Frank Turic’s drone footage) and notes a discrepancy: Harpole said he could not fly drones in Provo airspace, while a pilot friend indicates that drones could be flown there with proper clearance. - The speaker highlights that the 69-page lawsuit begins with strong pro-Israel content and later argues that Harpole is a private citizen rather than a public figure, a claim the speaker finds strategic because private citizens must meet a lower standard (not the actual malice standard). The speaker contends Harpole publicly appeared on the Sean Ryan Show, which can be viewed as thrusting himself into a public controversy, making him a limited-purpose public figure for the specific issue. - The speaker notes that Harpole’s appearance on Sean Ryan was said to be a response to defamatory statements, and the speaker asserts that he did not mention Harpole on his own podcast before Harpole’s appearance. He claims Harpole’s lawsuit is an attempt to control narrative and obtain exclusive content, implying a PR motive rather than a pure defamation action. - The speaker extracts a pattern: Harpole’s lawsuit includes several disputed or misrepresented text messages and documents (e.g., misattributed messages about securing rooftops) and alleges that Harpole’s lawyer lied in filing by asserting statements about Mitch Snow’s truthfulness when the speaker believes Mitch’s account is unconfirmed. - The speaker questions the lawsuit’s purpose and timing, suggesting it may be a strategic PR move rather than a straightforward defamation action. He expresses a desire to obtain depositions and subpoenas to uncover the truth about Fort Huachuca and Charlie Kirk’s September 10 events, emphasizing that this may be the only route to access key evidence and testimonies.

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 dialogue centers on accusations and revelations about political operatives and influence campaigns. Key points include: - A list of individuals named as problematic figures: Jack Kosobiak, Gabe Hoffman, Mike Cernovich, and Laura Loomer. Gabe Hoffman is described as “running hops on people” and as “a bad guy,” with a claim that these people are “evil” and unregistered foreign agents that the speaker will be watching closely. - A claim of infiltration and surveillance: one speaker asserts that someone close to them was likely there to infiltrate, and that “these people” attempted to set up someone they know and love, with the speaker vowing to monitor everything they do. - Allegations of role in broader disruptive actions: one speaker says, “We conduct riots and color revolutions and, you know, steal elections, and we overthrow governments we don't like. And I was part of that.” - The origin of operational concepts: one speaker mentions IIA, describing it as social media psychological warfare that began in 2007. - A sense of punitive consequence and manipulation: another speaker states that “they’re all being punished because they thought that what those important people told them was gonna happen,” and recalls being present during a plan to trash the capital, noting a lack of preparedness and security knowledge. - Reactions to claims about being controlled: one speaker says it pisses them off that others claim they’re being handled, with another agreeing that such claims have been heard before. - A warning tone about danger and preparation: one speaker warns that it is “very dangerous” that people are out there giving others hope, describing “a storm coming like nothing you have ever seen,” and asserting that not a single person is prepared for it. - Personal and on-site context: there are mentions of returning to a site to get a burner phone and use ghost accounts, and of attempting to coordinate around Breva, indicating ongoing, weaponized online activity and counter-movement tactics. Overall, the speakers blend accusations of manipulation and clandestine influence with admissions of involvement in disruptive actions, interspersed with warnings of impending upheaval and calls for vigilance.

The transcript centers on a long-form discussion of the Epstein case, the alleged “deep state,” FOIA operations, and political maneuvering around Trump, with frequent calls to aggressively release and pursue Epstein-related documents and other investigations. The speakers assert that the FOIA department is being used to shield deep-state ties and that many federal offices are filled with anti-Trump figures who have prevented full disclosure. - Epstein files and the role of the deep state - The speakers claim the Epstein files are being selectively redacted by FOIA departments to conceal deep-state connections. They state that FOIA personnel are controlled by deep-state actors and that Epstein’s case involves a “fleet of aircraft” and operations linked to major power centers. They argue Epstein’s activities connect to money laundering, information laundering, and a broader set of deep-state assets and operations. - They propose a remedy: appoint Tom Fitton as special counsel on the Epstein files, arguing he “knows how FOIA really works,” understands key personnel, and has litigated Epstein-related cases for years. They assert this would restore public confidence and expedite the exposure of Democratic ties and other actors alleged to be involved. - They advocate for Trump to have executive-privilege-style powers to declassify and release Epstein materials, suggesting a broad interpretation of “Epstein file law” that would allow him to disclose or appoint an ombudsman with power to release materials at will. They emphasize the need to disclose Democratic ties and to hold press conferences when releasing documents, avoiding the use of fake documents or videos. - Specific figures and institutions named - Kash Patel is cited as saying there are “open files on a dozen plus coconspirators” and as someone who has noted alleged misdirections by those handling Epstein-related material. - Kyle Serafin and Phil Kennedy are mentioned as documenting a person at the FBI capacity who is “an anti-Trump advocate,” implying that deep-state appointments control FOIA and related processes. - Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss replacing FOIA and related personnel who are deeply implicated; they specifically name Tom Fitton as the ideal choice and entertain other high-profile figures like Tulsi Gabbard as potential custodians of the Epstein disclosures. - Tulsi Gabbard is described as being in charge of broader investigations tied to the Epstein files and other major political issues (elections, COVID-19, etc.). They also reference “Epstein files” intersecting with other investigations they attribute to the deep state. - Epstein, Maxwell, and allied networks - Epstein is described as deeply embedded with Western intelligence agencies (French, Israeli, UK, and US) and tied to Robert Maxwell, with Maxwell’s daughter linked to Epstein. Epstein is portrayed as having been “recruited by Bill Barr” and as a central figure in a long-running intelligence and blackmail operation. - The discussion links Epstein to Leslie Wexner (Victoria’s Secret founder) and a French talent agency, portraying these connections as part of a large, interconnected network involved in money laundering, arms trafficking, blackmail, and intelligence work. - The speakers insist that Epstein’s activities extended to the late 1990s and beyond, including alleged involvement in “Shutters” in Santa Monica and other high-profile cases, with a consistent pattern of using underage girls and blackmail to exert influence. - They emphasize a broader motive: exposing the “deep state” to vindicate Trump and indict deep-state actors who allegedly engaged in illicit operations, including foreign intelligence services and Western governments. - The broader political frame and potential indictments - The Epstein files are presented as a potential hinge for indicting a wide array of figures across political lines, including references to Comey, Mueller, Hillary Clinton-era actors, and other “rogue actors” who allegedly hindered investigations. - The conversation ties Epstein to broader themes: the 2020 election, COVID policies, and anti-Trump actions by the “deep state.” They contend that the Epstein disclosures could demonstrate the depth of state interference in political processes and media, making Democrats and their institutions targets of accountability. - They argue the Epstien files could show criminal activity by multiple national actors, including Israeli, UK, and French components, and could reveal coordinated efforts to derail Trump and manipulate media narratives. - The Candace Owens angle and related criticisms - A substantial portion of the dialogue critiques Candace Owens, alleging she is running a “CIA-style” operation that distracts from the true conspiracy around the deep state and Tarantifa, and that she manipulates narratives related to Tyler Robinson and Charlie Kirk. - They accuse Owens of shifting narratives, fabricating alibis, and promoting disinformation, calling her a “SIOP” (psychological operation) and alleging her behind-the-scenes connections to MI6 or other international actors through her husband (George Farmer) and other associates. - They recount multiple incidents where Owens purportedly changed stories about meetings, alibis, and involvement in various investigations, asserting she uses “receipts” selectively and inconsistently to support divergent claims. - The speakers allege that Owens’s public warfare against Trump and TP USA is part of a broader intelligence operation intended to disrupt conservative momentum, link to Royal/MI6 circles, and undermine investigations into the deep state and its networks. - Tyler Robinson case and media dynamics - They describe Tyler Robinson as a Middle American figure whose transformation into a political actor is portrayed as a product of online radicalization and Tarantifa-linked influences. They claim there was a concerted effort to spoon-feed disinformation about Robinson and Candace Owens’ involvement. - They argue this is part of a larger pattern of media manipulation and disinformation designed to distract from real conspiracies and to target Trump and conservative movements. - Strategy and messaging guidance - The speakers advocate for Trump to go on the offensive with Epstein, releasing comprehensive, verified documentation, and pushing accountability for “rogue actors” in the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, and the NSA. - They stress the need for aggressive prosecution and the appointment of trusted figures to lead the Epstein disclosures, arguing that this could restore public confidence and pivot the political conversation toward accountability for the deep state. - They urge addressing the statute of limitations issues in COVID, January 6, and 2020 election-related cases before the window closes in early 2026, warning that delays by Bondi, Blanche, and others could jeopardize prosecutions and political support. - Promotional and logistical notes - The dialogue includes frequent mentions of promoting Alex Jones programs, products, and stores (alexjonesstore.com and infowarsstore.com) to fund operations, along with appeals to listeners to support the broadcasts financially and through purchases, framing financial support as essential to sustaining investigations, media efforts, and broader political action. In sum, the transcript presents an entangled, aggressively conspiratorial narrative: a claim that Epstein’s files illuminate a vast, deeply embedded deep-state apparatus spanning multiple nations and agencies; a call to appoint trusted figures (notably Tom Fitton) to supervise full disclosure; a push for Trump to declassify and publicly prosecute the implicated actors; a harsh critique of Candace Owens as part of a disinformation ecosystem; and a broader strategy to use Epstein, along with related investigations, to dismantle perceived institutional corruption while fueling political narratives and fundraising.

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."

Gary Melton (Gary) and Mitch have a lengthy, meandering exchange that centers on veterans’ histories, alleged government manipulation, personal trauma, and the pursuit of truth around high-profile political cases. The core thread is an effort to verify Mitch’s claims about his SF background and to explore broader claims about political interference, media narratives, and potential conspiracies. Key points and exchanges: - Identity, background, and verification: - Gary identifies himself as a former SF soldier seeking to verify Mitch’s SF history after seeing his Candace Owens interview. - Mitch provides his SF timeline: he was in group from February/March 1993 until November 1996; MOS 18 Charlie (medic). He mentions attending the 300F1 course and a severe on-duty accident at Guadalupe River, involving a 60-foot fall that caused multiple injuries (spine, feet, knee, lumbar, dislocations, torn labrum, etc.). - Mitch describes his treatment (brace, three-week leave, then recycled into the next class and internship at Brookhaven Army Medical Center Burn Ward). He mentions ODA +1 63166/ +1 63/ +1 66 and places himself on +183 and +185 in the old numbering system; later, he notes the transition to the newer numeric system circa 2002-2006. - Gary asks for Mitch’s DD214 to verify the story; Mitch agrees and offers to share it. He references being in “Lake Baja” and knowing Nate (Nate Chapman), whom he spoke with the day before. - Personal stakes, trauma, and family: - Mitch explains a long, difficult divorce and custody battle that spanned many years. He says he was a stay-at-home dad for his son, who is now 13, and describes persistent, aggressive accusations against him (PTSD, abuse, murder) by courts and media figures. - He recounts a prior incident involving a coworker or classmate, Jimmy Walker, and notes that Walker later claimed PTSD and discrimination in SF contexts. Mitch frames this as part of broader patterns of how SF status can be weaponized in custody and legal battles. - Mitch and Gary discuss how the SF environment can foster suspicion, paranoia, and intra-community politics (e.g., clashes with SF Brothers, admin actions, and the difficulty of maintaining contact with peers after leaving the teams). - Candace Owens, TPUSA, and broader conspiratorial discussions: - The callers discuss Candace Owens’ involvement, the TPUSA circle, and the believability of various claims. Mitch says he has wanted to vet the claims through Candace and Joe Kent, and he’s offered to supply documents to verify stories. He notes that Candace has reportedly pulled threads about various shooters and narratives and that this has caused friction with TPUSA. - Mitch argues that Candace might be exploited by political or foreign adversaries and that her narratives sometimes lack corroborating evidence, distracting from “the truth.” He insists on corroborating Mitch’s own story with documents (DD214, other records) before airing anything publicly. - Gary responds with skepticism about online personas but agrees to vet Mitch’s materials, emphasizing integrity and a desire to verify truth. Both acknowledge the risk of backend manipulation, bot attacks, and the use of media figures to push narratives. - Ballistics and the Charlie Kirk incident: - A substantial portion of the discussion turns to ballistics surrounding Tyler Robinson and the Charlie Kirk incident. Mitch (the ballistics expert) explains that many variables affect ballistic outcomes (ammo type, grain, bullet construction, handloads vs. factory ammo, barrel condition, yaw, stabilization). He argues that the 30-06 round’s behavior can be highly variable and that an “atypical” (non-normative) wound could occur for many reasons. - He compares Martin Luther King’s assassination (65-yard shot, 30-06, open casket) to Charlie Kirk’s wound, noting similarities in the trajectory and lack of an exit wound in some high-profile cases. He cites Chuck Ritter (Green Beret) who was shot multiple times with 7.62x54R and survived, and uses these examples to illustrate the complexity of interpreting ballistic evidence. - Mitch asserts that multiple plausible explanations exist for Kirk’s wounds and stresses that the exact ammunition type, projectile, and ballistic conditions are unknown at present. He emphasizes that investigators possess DNA and surveillance records (DNA on the firearm, trigger, cartridge, towel used by Tyler Robinson) and text messages; he notes that Mitch is not claiming to know the entire truth but wants to see corroborating evidence. - The two discuss the possibility of government involvement or manipulation, while acknowledging that ballistics alone cannot prove a broader conspiracy. They note the challenges of obtaining complete ballistic data before trials, and they express openness to future verification once more information becomes available (e.g., during trial proceedings). - Custody, investigations, and accountability: - Mitch recounts the broader pattern of SF members being targeted by legal systems when in contentious custody situations, with accusations and judgments influenced by SF status. He cites examples of coercion, character assassination, and the weaponization of families in court battles. - They discuss how the FBI and other agencies have handled high-profile cases, noting distrust in narratives presented by authorities and media. They acknowledge that public transparency is essential, even as prosecutions proceed. - Platform, vetting, and next steps: - The two plan to continue the vetting process: Mitch will provide DD214 and related documents to Gary, who promises to verify and not disclose sensitive information without Mitch’s consent. They discuss sending further documents via email or text (Gary’s Paramount Tactical contact). - Mitch expresses a desire to appear on Gary’s show and to connect with Nate (Nate Chapman) for collaborative vetting. Gary commits to facilitating, offering to act as an advocate if Mitch’s story is verified and to help set up communications with Nate and Candace as appropriate. - The conversation closes with both agreeing on the importance of truth, corroboration, and accountability. They acknowledge the risk and the emotional toll of revealing sensitive histories but emphasize their commitment to pursuing the truth and preventing misinformation or manipulation. Overall, the transcript captures a tense, exploratory exchange between two veterans and affiliates about verifying SF credentials, the personal toll of custody and legal battles, the influence of political narratives, and the complexities of ballistics and forensics in high-profile incidents. The participants stress verification through documents, corroboration of anecdotes, and cautious, integrity-driven engagement with media figures and audiences.

The speakers discuss alleged hidden dynamics within Turning Point and connections to international and ideological forces. Speaker 0 claims that Arizona has long investigated Turning Point, and that conversations within the state finally broke into the public sphere. He says he spoke with Liz Harris, a former Arizona House member, and asserts that Harris told him, “Turning Point's Mossad. Tyler Boyer is Mossad. They're all neocons. They're connected to Mossad.” He says he has the report and a recording of Harris saying this, emphasizing that many people warned him but he wanted to verify for himself. He states that "when Charlie died that was it for me" and that he decided it was time to come out and reveal what he witnessed and participated in, apologizing to the American people. Speaker 1 acknowledges familiarity with Liz Harris and then asks for details about internal communications leaking after Charlie’s death, which allegedly show that he was leaving the Zionist cause and that leadership faced questions about Israel policy. The question is whether Tyler Boyer was explicitly asked about this direction and what his answer was. Speaker 0 describes an incident in Boyer’s office where a female associate asked Boyer, “why are you so against Candace Owens. The Israel cause etcetera.” He says Boyer closed the door, pulled the speaker’s friend in, and told her, “listen, I’m a Zionist. Candace Owens is a black conservative who wants to be relevant in this movement. And she's doing whatever she can at all cause to stay relevant.” He presents this as proof, claiming it is in the text he sent to Stu and that the friend confirmed it in the office encounter. Across the exchange, the core assertions are that Liz Harris labeled Turning Point's leadership as connected to Mossad and neocon interests, specifically naming Tyler Boyer as Mossad; that after Charlie’s death there were internal, leaked communications about Zionist alignment and Israel policy; and that Boyer disclosed a Zionist stance and disparaged Candace Owens during a confrontation in his office, presenting Candace Owens as attempting to stay relevant in the movement.

The conversation centers on Matthew Tierman, a former Project Veritas board member, and a leader of numerous provocative claims and confrontations documented over a recent period. The participants describe Tierman as having a long history of intense and sometimes violent rhetoric toward James O’Keefe and others, and they present a narrative in which Tierman asserts deep involvement with and access to multiple federal law enforcement offices. Key remarks and claims include: - Tierman allegedly told an undercover journalist that he “fed the Southern District tons of shit” about James O’Keefe and others to try to get them imprisoned. He also claimed to have been an FBI informant and to have spoken with the SDNY, the FBI, the DOJ, and the IRS, asserting he had “thousands of sources in the Department of Justice and the CIA” and that he spent his days trying to “play stories about corruption.” - He is quoted saying he has worked with law enforcement on various topics and that he has fed the SDNY “tons of shit.” He also claimed he was on an “enemies list” at the DOJ and warned of a potential “perp-w walk” in October, which did not come to pass. - Tierman asserted he has access to and engages with legacy media to target conservative figures and claimed involvement with figures like Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk, and Don Jr. He alleged Don Jr. has engaged in insider trading and “crypto schemes” to bribe foreign governments, and he stated that his mission for the next two years is to “make sure [Don Jr.] ends up in prison” because he believes Don Jr. has “stolen a billion dollars from the American people.” - He described a broad, cross-ideological network, claiming to be “on all sides” and to talk to the New York Times and National Review, suggesting he negotiates or interacts with diverse media outlets to pursue stories. - The narrative includes a dramatic incident in which Tierman allegedly shot at a book belonging to James O’Keefe, bragging that he wanted to kill him. The discussion references a “bullet right through my heart” inscription in the book and a confrontation in Miami Beach where undercover reporters approached Tierman to verify his statements about wanting to kill O’Keefe. - The participants recount a prior board meeting on February 6, three years earlier, during which Tierman allegedly threatened to “carve my heart out and eat it” in reference to James O’Keefe. They describe how Veritas used remaining funds in litigation against O’Keefe and how, after his termination, he allegedly sought to involve law enforcement to restrain or arrest him. - Tierman allegedly described his investment ambitions, stating he aims to accumulate “a hundred million dollars” to “weaponize money” and to operate in investment banking to wield financial power, citing industry figures such as Paul Singer as a point of comparison. He claimed to have a broker license and to be involved with several investment entities, including Petragen and Cathayed Incorporated, and he discussed NDA restrictions and conflicts of interest related to his activities while on the Veritas board. - The interview mentions the involvement of George Scackel and the notion that Petragen could be sold to big pharma; it also references a prior defamation suit and ongoing disputes with Veritas, including accusations of misappropriating funds and other misconduct. - The reporters tease that Tierman admitted to working with SDNY and the FBI, and that they intend to pursue further discovery, noting threats and violent imagery used by Tierman toward O’Keefe. They emphasize the dramatic, ongoing tension between Tierman and James O’Keefe, culminating in the live confrontation in Miami and a broader dossier of alleged informant activity. Overall, the piece presents Tierman’s allegations about informant activity, his alleged violent rhetoric toward O’Keefe, his plans to monetize and weaponize money, and his disputes with Project Veritas and its leadership, all culminating in a charged confrontation on the street in Miami.

The transcript centers on a heated, interconnected discussion about Tucker Carlson, U.S. politics, and the perceived influence of Israel, the Israel lobby, and foreign interests on American public discourse. The participants volley accusations, defenses, and conspiracy theories, with several notable claims and counterclaims. - The opening segment portrays Tucker Carlson as a target of powerful actors. Speaker 0 argues that Netanyahu and others have labeled Carlson a problem, suggesting that calling him a “fox in a henhouse” is a veiled call for violence and censorship. They warn that such rhetoric could provoke political suppression or harm toward Carlson, and they reference debates over whether Carlson’s anti-war stance and Iran policy have drawn attacks from prominent Israel-first voices. - The conversation shifts to alleged political interference and investigations. Speaker 0 references Kash Patel and a mid-September claim that Patel confronted J. D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and others about an investigation, asserting Patel was told not to involve certain intelligence matters or foreign involvement in domestic issues. They describe “the Israel lobby literally run by Netanyahu” as attacking Carlson and pressing to “neutralize” him. There is also a claim that Democrats celebrated or advocated harm against Charlie Kirk and that “six trainees” in a town suggested Kirk would be dead the next day, though no evidence is presented for these claims. - Speaker 1 introduces a harsh critique of Carlson, saying he is “the most dangerous anti-Semite in America,” accusing him of aligning with those who celebrate Nazis, defend Hamas, and criticize Trump for stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The comment emphasizes that Carlson is not MAGA, and asserts a leadership role for Carlson in a modern-day Hitler youth narrative. - The dialogue between Speakers 0 and 2 (Adam King) delves into broader political positioning. Adam King says Carlson “left MAGA,” that MAGA is a big tent whereas Carlson seeks a smaller, more controlled sphere, and that Carlson is working against the Trump agenda by attempting to influence 2028 considerations. Speaker 0 counters, arguing Tucker covers a wide range of topics and remains central to the movement, not simply fixated on Israel. - There is debate about the influence of Jewish voters and donors on the 2024 campaign, with back-and-forth estimates of Jewish contributions and skepticism about the degree to which Jews will back Vance or other candidates. The participants discuss antisemitism accusations, censorship, and the difficulty of debating these topics. They criticize the idea of labeling people antisemitic as a manipulation tactic and urge more open dialogue. - The dialogue touches on the media landscape and the limits of speaking on both sides. Adam King argues for more balanced dialogue and warns that the current rhetoric—terms like “neutralize”—fuels violence. He expresses concern about online harassment of Jews and the normalization of violent language in political discourse. - There are tangential conversations about foreign influence in U.S. affairs. Adam King mentions Qatar, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and other foreign money; he cites a Newsmax report about Mamdani’s foreign funding and discusses debates over whether Qatar has a U.S. airbase or is primarily involved in training programs. The participants debate where influence truly lies, whether with Soros, the left, or other actors. - The segment ends with a mix of promotional content and entertainment, including a satirical insert about Ultra Methylene Red, a product advertised with claims about cognitive and physiological benefits, followed by fictional, humor-laden banter about “Batman” and “the Riddler” reacting to the product. In sum, the transcript captures a multi-faceted, contentious exchange over Carlson’s position in the MAGA movement, accusations of antisemitism and censorship, perceived foreign influence in U.S. politics, and the tensions within the right-wing ecosystem, all interwoven with promotional and humorous interludes.

The speaker sued the Biden administration and won. According to the speaker, discovery revealed that 37 hours after Biden's inauguration, a White House group was appointed to censor the speaker and others. The speaker claims to have emails between this group and Mark Zuckerberg, as well as people at Twitter. The speaker credits Elon Musk with making these emails public and believes Musk is essential to free speech in the U.S. because he opened up Twitter. The speaker states that Musk released these documents to journalists against the advice of his attorneys.

Candace Owens is described as a former friend of Charlie and at one time an employee of Turning Point, accused of peddling conspiracies and “building her business off of these lies,” with the assertion that she is making “a huge amount of money” from them. The speaker’s response to Candace Owens and others spreading these lies is simply: “Stop.” The conversation then shifts to a revelation that the interview was prerecorded, with sources from CBS News and audience members who say they had to do multiple takes because Barry wanted to read a prompter and questions were pre-submitted. In addressing the question, the speaker asserts that the podcaster Candace Owens and others are “lying,” and that “All of the money. Millions upon millions of dollars” have been earned by some people, while others did not benefit as claimed. The speaker argues that Candace Owens implies that building a business from podcasting results in immediate wealth, but claims the speaker “already had this business” and was “already at top of the chart.” Eric responds, and the speaker’s response to what to say to Candace Owens who is lying is “stop,” with a request for Erica to be explicit about what was lied about. The speaker claims to have reviewed lists and cannot find the lie, asserting that “The lies that I find are coming out of Turning Point USA.” Examples cited as lies from Turning Point USA include Mikey’s blood on him, Mikey’s dad being confused, and Rob McCoy’s statements about his father, which the speaker says Rob McCoy was confused about. The speaker also says Mikey’s departure as a hero does not feel honest, and alleges Charlie’s claim that he stopped a 30-06 bullet due to healthy eating and strong bones was a modern-day Christian miracle and a lie. The speaker asserts Charlie never wavered in his support for Israel, calling that a “nasty lie,” and accuses Turning Point USA of lying about Charlie’s life in the last weeks. The speaker also mentions claims that Barry won something, and questions whether Charlie’s evangelical commitment and preference for Catholic architecture were misrepresented as lies. The speaker notes further that Turning Point USA lied about various other points, including a supposed “blood bad blood” between Ben Chifferro and others, and Terrell Farnsworth being told to remove an SD card by police, stating that Terrell Farnsworth personally told the speaker that was not true. The speaker claims Terrell removed the SD cards because hats were being stolen, not because of other thefts, and questions the logic of taking the cameras instead of just the SD card, especially the camera behind Terrell’s head. Additional alleged lies include Charlie establishing a Doge, which is claimed not to have existed, and prior to Elon Musk’s government-accountability remark, that Charlie Christine flew drones—described as a major lie by Brian Harpold, who also allegedly stated that security had communicated with UB police to secure rooftops, which the speaker calls a lie. The speaker asks what they lied about, acknowledging mistakes but insisting they have not found a lie, and asks why there isn’t the same energy about lies from the feds, who allegedly told lies as well. The speaker references missing footage of Tyler Robinson turning himself in, unresolved questions about Egyptian planes, and years of tracking Charlie and Erika, with others laughing at these points. The speaker asks explicitly what they lied about and requests clarity, noting possible time-zone mistakes and a timeline discrepancy, and asking where the speaker is lying.

He recounts being told, while offline at the synagogue, that Candice is really going after him, and he describes the effect of turning his phone on to see all the notifications and messages. He says he was up until 3AM local time dealing with the barrage of messages and emails. He distinguishes this experience from ordinary pushback, stating that this is not a response to a legal theory or a constructive debate about the two-state solution, but rather “picking a Jewish person and calling him subhuman filth and sinking your band of millions and millions of neo Nazi zealots on a Jewish person who happens to be a … husband and father to a young child.” He emphasizes the severity and ugliness of the harassment, characterizing it as “awful, awful stuff.” He then shifts to his own perspective, noting publicly (as far as he believes) that he is talking to lawyers about the matter. As a lawyer with a background that includes clerking for a federal appeals judge, he states that he “knows a thing or two about United States constitutional law.” He says there is “potentially serious case here for defamation” and that he is “very much speaking with lawyers,” with the outcome still to be determined—“we’ll see what happens.” He frames the situation as a confrontation that goes beyond typical professional disagreement, involving targeted hatred toward a Jewish individual who is described as a husband and father. Throughout, he underscores the personal toll of the online harassment, contrasting it with his professional experience and legal considerations. He communicates a sense of urgency and concern about the legal and reputational implications, while indicating he is actively seeking legal counsel to assess possible defamation avenues. The overall message centers on the severity of the targeted harassment, its anti-Jewish intensity, and the potential legal response he may pursue.

Candace Owens: Shabbat shalom and Hanukkah wishes. Israel has a right to defend itself. Then she riffs about Tucker Carlson and TikTok, but shifts to recount of a four-and-a-half hour meeting with Turning Point USA, Erica, Justin Streiff, and others to address questions and concerns. Candace Owens: She emphasizes she invited Erica and others to answer questions, noting there were no rules in the room for that four-and-a-half hour session; the aim was to get clear answers and understand what Turning Point USA could or could not disclose. She describes the participants: Justin Streiff, Erica, George for part of it, her cousin Mia for vibes, and later George leaving. She explains her goal was to determine why Turning Point USA hadn’t answered basic questions and to address what she saw as miscommunications and lies. Candace Owens: Erica owned apparent lies or miscommunications early in the discussion, explaining that 650 employees can be emotional and that messages circulating on Twitter didn’t always reflect management’s communications. She references a prior interview with Glenn Beck and a viral clip about Charlie’s phone, clarifying Erica looked at Charlie’s iMessages and found he used Signal and Telegram, not regular texting. Andrew Kolbet (Kolbet) told her that Andrew did receive a message the night before the shooting saying “they’re going to kill me,” and she notes that Dan Flood received a similar message; she cautions about confirming the exact wording for Dan’s message. Candace Owens: She contends that some content from Barry Weiss’s interview was planned and not random, and that Barry Weiss asked questions that were directed; Erica said she knew the general idea but not the exact Candace Owens question. Candace maintains she did not recant her suspicions and lists concerns about specific Turning Point USA figures: Terrell Farnsworth allegedly lied about camera disruptions; Blake Neff and Mikey McCoy’s call logs were discussed, with Candace blaming Terrell’s actions and questioning the credibility of Tyler Boyer and Rob McCoy. She notes Rob McCoy does not work for Turning Point USA, contradicting the sense that he was “America’s pastor” at Memorial and that his Wikipedia entry had been updated accordingly. Candace Owens: She discusses the “magic bullet” and the texting around Charlie Kirk’s shooting. She recounts Andrew Kolbet’s claim that a surgeon stated the bullet should have gone through Charlie and could have killed those behind him; she emphasizes Andrew went to the surgeon and claimed permission to post but acknowledges questions about HIPAA. She notes investigators later indicated the surgeon didn’t know Andrew before the tweet, and that Kolbet’s post reflected an unverified account. Candace Owens: She describes the security around the event, the involvement of Brian Harpole in interviews (Sean Ryan) and a lack of certainty about whether he still works with Turning Point USA. She says that investigators are in an ongoing process, that no one from Turning Point USA or Erica has seen new evidence beyond what the public has, and that an May probable cause hearing will reveal concrete evidence. She criticizes media narratives that declare “the evidence is overwhelming” and argues for a cautious, transparent approach, acknowledging she had pressed for more concrete proof before publicly asserting involvement of specific individuals. Candace Owens: She reveals she asked for Mikey McCoy’s logs and confirms Mikey’s real name, sharing that Mikey called his wife first, then his father, and only later added Erica to the call, with subsequent calls involving his brother. She notes Blake Neff’s call with his mother and the timeline around the shooting, addressing discrepancies in various retellings and emphasizing the need for accuracy in call logs. Candace Owens: She mentions the Hamptons retreat and alleged lies, referencing Seth Dillon’s confrontation with Charlie Kirk and concerns about funding offers from BB Netanyahu to take Turning Point USA to the next level, which she says Erica denied knowing about, while noting multiple sources confirmed the offer. She clarifies she never asserted a $150,000,000 figure, only that there were discussions about taking Turning Point to the next level and that the offer’s gravity raises questions. Candace Owens: She returns to Egyptian planes, promising an upcoming interactive timeline on her site showing planes’ patterns and how they tie to Israel, arguing this is part of the broader pattern they are following. She notes that planes regularly fly in and out of Israel with transponders off, and she plans to present this evidence tomorrow, inviting scrutiny of those planes’ activity. Candace Owens: The segment ends with a tease about presenting the Egyptian planes evidence and transitions to sponsor mentions.