reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The conversation centers on a reported peace framework and the idea that Iran is “giving up all of their chips” and cards. The speaker says many people seem to believe the rumor that a peace deal is in play, and reacts by calling themselves an optimist while insisting the approach must be “realistic.” The speaker argues that any peace deal “won’t be acceptable to Israel,” and that the key requirement is taking steps to restrain Israel. They say that, if the U.S. looks at the Israelis “with clear eyes,” it could achieve a deal with Iran that does not include everything the U.S. wants—for example, the speaker says Iran will not “hill(s) in the deal about zero enrichment” and will not “hand us over all your enrichment.” The speaker’s main goal is ending the fighting, which they say is “definitely possible.” However, the speaker expresses skepticism that the U.S. has taken the first “hard step” of telling Israel it is “done taking offensive action without our permission.” They describe the war as “existential for the Israelis,” and argue the situation cannot assume Israel will not face conditions that could lead to continued attacks or another “terrorist attack.” The speaker says the U.S. cannot “take that off the table” or “rule it out,” and cannot allow others to dismiss considerations as “a conspiracy theory.” The speaker further claims the U.S. has had institutional difficulty being skeptical and “not trusting” regarding Israel, saying Israel “lied us, lied to us to get us into this war.” They argue the U.S. needs to “turn Matter” (stating “as a matter of fact”) and apply more verification, especially because Israel is described as an ally that has misled the U.S. Finally, the speaker says if Israelis believed the U.S. would extricate itself from the conflict, “there would be an element within Israel” seeking actions to prompt Americans to recommit to the conflict, reinforcing the need for not taking anything off the table and emphasizing verification.

The speaker mentions that a former head of military intelligence in Israel was friendly with Epstein. They point out that there is no evidence provided to support the claim that Israel was involved in running Epstein. They mention that Maxwell worked for Israel and Epstein worked for Maxwell, and that Epstein was introduced to Maxwell's daughter and Israeli intelligence.

The speaker reveals a surprising reason why America, the UK, and France support Israel. Contrary to popular belief, it's not about oil but rather the Suez Canal. Egypt currently owns the canal and earns $9 billion annually from it. The Americans, British, and French want a share of this profit. To achieve this, they plan to build the Ben Gurion Canal by nuking a rocky area in the Middle East. This new canal would allow wider passage for ships and would empty into the Mediterranean at the northern point of Gaza. The speaker suggests that the current events in Gaza, including ethnic cleansing and forcing Palestinians into the south, are all part of the plan to construct this canal.

The speaker warns that a war with Arabs and the Muslim world is imminent, but claims that the 9/11 attacks were not carried out by Muslims, but rather by the Israeli Mossad. They refer to a US army report published the day before 9/11, which allegedly warned about Israel's ability to carry out such attacks. The speaker emphasizes that this is not their conspiracy theory, but information from the US army report.

The discussion centers on a rapid escalation of online activity described as military bot operations, which the speakers associate with attempts to cancel Candace Owens from Australia after October 7. They note a pattern in which bot activity appears when certain topics are discussed, including Fort Huachuca, the Obas Gai, and Cairo/African plains references, tying these to an eyewitness who insists he saw Brian Harpole and believed there was an all-hands-on-deck meeting the day before. The speakers stress a broader pattern of activity on the same day and say they verified the eyewitness’s account with people stationed at the base. A longer clip from Baron Coleman is introduced, focusing on what it means to see a SAM call sign on a plane, especially those flying from Andrews outside Washington, D.C. Coleman argues that a key piece of evidence in Candace Owens’ story is a jet used exclusively by few people—presidential family members, cabinet officials, and military generals at the Pentagon—present at the location of a high-level meeting the morning of September 9, the day before Charlie Kirk’s alleged neutralization. The jet is described as a Special Air Mission (SAM) jet; the conversation explains that SAM call signs designate flights carrying high-ranking officials, with Air Force One and Air Force Two as the corresponding designated callsigns when the president or vice president is aboard. The flight logs show a jet with the rarely used SAM000 call sign, which indicates a highly sensitive passenger manifest, traveling on August 25 from Joint Base Andrews to Colorado Springs (home of the 10th Special Forces Group), then to Las Vegas, and later a return leg to Joint Base Andrews as SAM658. Speaker 0 questions whether this pattern means a very important person traveled on the flight, noting the call sign changes from a high-priority SAM to an RCH (a less VIP designation) and later to SAM as the VIP reappears. They discuss the possibility that someone significant either boarded or disembarked in Las Vegas, with Venus noted as an empty-flight designation when only the pilots are aboard. The timeline is tied to Brian Harpole’s statements about UVU event preparations, with the August 24 date identified as when intel gathering and hard conversations began, described by Harpole as starting two weeks prior and documented in a decentralized command app. The speakers compare this to “Operation Valhalla,” which they say began on August 24 and ended on August 27. They observe that on August 25, a VIP flight to Colorado Springs occurred, the same day the aircraft flew to Las Vegas, after which the log shows an RCH designation on a subsequent leg, suggesting a less-than-top-tier passenger on that leg. The speaker notes they have multiple emails confirming Fort Huachuca as an intelligence base, reinforcing the claim that the base is linked to covert missions rather than routine operations. They express a belief in the credibility of the eyewitness account about Harpole and say they plan to feature the testimony and related details, including additional flight logs (referred to as the finishing touch on SUBTV) and visuals from a car investigation, on kennethowens.com or similar platforms. The overarching aim is to explore whether Egyptian planes are connected to Israel, which they say would explain a mass panic. They emphasize continuing to pursue these narratives while minimizing distractions from “timelines and delivering this information.”

Israel's entire military plan was leaked, including highly confidential information about how they're going to fight, where they're going to fight, and where they're going to go. The leak was possibly from the defense department or somebody. Authorities have no idea who did it. The speaker suggests that whoever leaked the information is the enemy, possibly the enemy from within.

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.

Candace Owens is presented as promising “the heat” and discusses a troubling incident involving alleged private Egyptian military contractors. The visual reference shows several men described as private Egyptian military contractors on screen, with the implication that they are connected to a secretive mission. Candace Owens is said to be about to explain a plane that flew over to America, landed in Utah, and carried military contractors or subcontractors who did not return on the plane that took off on September 11. The claim is that these individuals were involved in a private, secret mission so terrifying that the information source felt threatened for their life, yet felt compelled to share it publicly. The presenter urges viewers to check this information out. Speaker 1 asserts, with purported “absolute solid proof” from an individual close to one of the people who was aboard the flight, that on September 4 there was no routine stop in Utah for servicing. The speaker questions the claim that the plane’s stop in Utah was for routine servicing, arguing that an Egyptian military plane would not require tire changes or servicing in Utah and stating that the plane was carrying military subcontractors and that they were dropped off in Provo. The account claims that these subcontractors did not return to Cairo, noting that the plane left and then stopped in Wilmington, Delaware, before departing back to Cairo on September 11. The speaker emphasizes that, when the plane left, those people were mysteriously missing from the plane. The claim is reiterated: Egyptian military subcontractors were in Utah on September 4 (or around that date) for reasons not disclosed and not for routine maintenance. The assertion is made that the flight’s presence in Utah was connected to a discreet mission, to the extent that the person providing the information feared for their life but decided to present it because they were horrified like the rest of the world. The speaker contrasts this with criticisms previously leveled at Kash Patel, suggesting that such conspiracies are dangerous and challenging him to dispute the claims, framing the matter within a broader narrative of confronting perceived evil. The transcript closes by noting that the mistake was executing the information publicly, and that people felt something significant, which led to courage and action to root out what is described as evil in society, resulting in more people standing up and doing something brave.

The speaker criticizes the Israeli army, calling them a well-trained terrorist organization. They mention an incident from four years ago when Israel began bombing Gaza, dropping 100 tons of bombs on the first day. The speaker argues that this act was terrorism, as it occurred during a shift change when children were on the streets. They also suggest that Israel maintains control over different populations while projecting a liberal image.

The speaker raises several connected points about accountability and messaging around major U.S. foreign and domestic issues. First, they highlight the perceived urgency of a rapid twenty-hour response from a country the size of New Jersey, noting that such a response begs for a big explanation. They then point to what they describe as America underwriting the Israeli government to the tune of $4,000,000,000 annually, arguing that American taxpayers deserve answers about what they are buying with that funding. A central concern voiced is the possibility of a regional or world war arising from an intelligence failure, and the speaker asks for clarity on how the U.S. is funding or supporting actions in the region in light of that risk. They emphasize that they and others deserve to know what the financial backing is achieving. The speaker also recounts personal experience with being smeared for their views, including being labeled a Jew hater, an anti-Semite, and a conspiracy theorist because of what they have said. They insist on not backing down in the face of such smears. Drawing on lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, the speaker references multiple narratives they say they encountered: the claim that the virus originated from a bat in the Himalayas, the assertion that the vaccine was safe and effective, and the insistence that ivermectin was “horse-paced.” They express a belief in the importance of asking questions, framing it as the thing that keeps people free. In sum, the speaker calls for transparency about large-scale U.S. financial support to Israel, questions about the potential consequences of intelligence failures leading to broader conflict, and a sustained commitment to inquiry in the face of public criticism, tying these to broader lessons they took from the COVID era.

The discussion centers on claims that Hamas is sending missiles into Israel and that some missiles are coming from populated areas. The speaker says Hamas used money that came into Gaza for construction purposes—such as roads and other needs—and also used some of that money to build “very sophisticated tunnels” into Israel for military purposes and “for survival purposes.” The conversation turns into an argument about Israel’s right to resist. The speaker repeatedly affirms “Israel has a right to resist,” saying that if people do not accept this, they “don’t” understand the premise. Multiple interruptions occur as the speaker tries to answer a question that was asked. The exchange becomes focused on control of the microphone and who is allowed to speak. The speaker insists they are answering the question and objects to being “interrupted” or “disturbed.” Another participant challenges the interaction by arguing about the need for open discussion, describing a desire to “discuss it with people” and urging the other person to come down and be “democratic.” The speaker characterizes their ongoing responses as part of “democracy,” stating that the question was asked and they are answering it, and asking to be allowed to “let him finish.” The transcript ends with the speaker saying they do not want to be disturbed or interrupted while continuing their response.

Speaker 0 says they still have the same gut instinct as initially, finding it “very hard to believe.” They describe having been to the Gaza border and claim that people cannot go “10 feet without running into” a 19-year-old with an AR-15 or an automatic machine gun, identifying them as IDF soldiers, and they state that “the whole country is surveilled.” They then discuss Israeli politics, saying that over the last nine months Israel was “on the brink of civil war,” and that “judicial stuff” led to “hundreds of thousands of Israelis” taking to the streets because Bibi Netanyahu was “basically redefining the Israeli constitution.” Speaker 0 says “some questions need to be asked,” specifically: whether there was a “stand down order” and whether it lasted six hours, adding, “I don’t believe it.” They argue that Israel is “the size of New Jersey,” and that from Jerusalem to the Gaza border a helicopter ride takes 45 minutes, making “six hours” seem unlikely. They ask whether someone in the government said “stand down,” calling it a “legitimate non-conspiracy question.” Speaker 0 claims “the whole country is the IDF” and states that they believe the government is going to “try to ethnically cleanse Gaza,” using the term “ethnically cleanse” while saying they “don’t use that term lightly.” They assert that officials are “talking about basically removing 2.5 million people from there.” They also say their “pattern recognition” over the last five years has become “pretty sharp,” citing examples including COVID, Maui fires, and Epstein, and concluding that when a story “doesn’t click,” “our guts are usually right.”

The transcript states that the voice of the hijacker on the hijacked planes’ voice recorder reveals that the accent of the hijacker matches an Israeli Hebrew accent. It then reports that FBI director Mueller, BBC News, and ABC have confirmed that seven of the 19 Muslims whose mugshots were flashed around the world did not die in the September 11 crashes; they are alive and well and are victims of identity theft. It adds that an eighth accused Muslim died one year before the September 11 hijackings even occurred. The speaker then asks who stole their identities and why the FBI isn’t looking for them. It questions if the hijackers really were Muslims, why they would steal the identities of fellow Muslims and implicate them, and suggests they would be more likely to steal Israeli identities and put the blame on Israelis. It further asks whether, if the hijackers were Israelis, they would be likely to steal the identities of Muslims and put the blame on Muslims.

The transcript argues that the Pentagon has “raised the alarm” about Israel, presenting espionage and political pressure as the lead threat to the United States. It says this goes beyond “just spying,” describing efforts to put pressure on people, “buying people off,” and forcing “full war.” It claims Israel is “bragging” about removing specific opponents and “we’re gonna get everybody,” and it cites a claim that the Pentagon called espionage by Israel the number one security threat. A central claim is that new legislation passed Thursday, under Section 224 of the National Defense Authorization Act, would give Israel “total access to everything,” including AI, weapons, weapons development, DARPA, top universities, live-time telemetry, integration, live-time fusion, and “synchronization,” which the transcript says refers to armed services working together down to the unit level. It states that Netanyahu wrote the plan and wrote what they put in the bill, thanking the committee for passing it, and describes the bill’s movement: from one committee to the final committee on Thursday, and then “less than twenty-four hours later” the Pentagon comes out with a confirmed assessment. The transcript says the Pentagon acknowledged that it had “leaked this to NBC News,” and that other outlets “sat on it” until the legislation began passing out of committee. It further states that the Pentagon’s assessment—described as being held for “two and a half weeks”—identifies Israel as the number one national security threat because of “the unhinged behavior of Israel,” including hacking phones, breaking into homes, and pressure on families. It also claims former spy chiefs and Israeli officials describe aggressive conduct and competence. The transcript then presents an “emergency warning” framing: it says the Pentagon issued an emergency warning to “the American people, the White House, and the armed services,” claiming Israel is attempting “a silent coup” against U.S. armed services and intelligence agencies. It claims multiple Pentagon intelligence agencies joined an agreement, stating they “aren’t doing their job,” and that the “treason got so bad” that the Pentagon’s number one threat is Israel’s espionage. It describes alleged symbols and coordination inside the Pentagon, including Israeli flags and bases, and says it describes efforts for troops to “pledge allegiance” to Israel and IDF soldiers wearing their uniforms during congressional voting. It then points to additional reports and news coverage, claiming the New York Times and Wall Street Journal later report that Israelis somehow broke into military phones and intelligence personnel systems “in live time control.” It also asserts Israel’s role in hardware supply chains, claiming Apple says new iPhones have their chip made in Israel by an Israeli defense company, and it references Israel’s prior activity against Iran’s power plants, comparing it to other countries’ chip-loading and software tactics while emphasizing Israel is “really nasty about it.” Finally, the transcript focuses on Congressman Massey’s criticisms. It says Section 224 includes “synchronize,” “integrate,” and related terms, and Massey argues the language implies merging the IDF and U.S. military, including chain-of-command concerns. It states Massey intends to offer an amendment to strip the provision. The transcript adds that Section 224 calls for a “czar” or “director of the merger program,” describing that the director reports once a year to Congress while the details are classified, and it claims the Pentagon is “a black hole for money.” It describes the committee chair and ranking member’s plans to mark up the bill and move toward a full House vote.

The speaker was asked why not blame Hamas for the atrocities. They explained their mission was to gather information, not assign blame. The speaker acknowledged the frustration of the people of Israel and emphasized the need for the government to provide access for further investigation.

Speaker 0 explains that once goals are achieved, Americans understand that “we’re real partners.” Speaker 1 reinforces: “Real partners.” Speaker 0 contends that what has to be done is to have alternative routes instead of going through the choke points of the Hormuz Straits and the Bab El Mandeb Straits in order to have the flow. Speaker 1 prompts: “Wait for it.” Speaker 0 continues: “Just have oil pipelines going west to through the Arabian Peninsula To where? Right up to Israel, right up to our Mediterranean. There” Speaker 1 interjects: “you have it.” Speaker 0 asserts that the real objective of all of this was to intentionally—“they knew that starting a war with Iran would cause a shutdown of both the Bab El Mamdab Straits, which is what the Houthis can affect in the Red Sea, and then the Strait Of Hormuz, which Iran has effectively shut down.” He states that they knew that would happen because their long-term goal has always been to force the Muslim countries in the Arab states, the Gulf Arab states, to route all of their oil exports through Israel. Speaker 1 adds: “Therefore, Israel can now control up to 40% of the world's petroleum. And that amount of control would absolutely make them a superpower, and that's exactly what they want.” Speaker 0 goes on to say that if Iran falls, it’s not going to be Turkey next; it’s going to be Egypt because they have to take back the Suez Canal. He notes that Egypt had control during the Arab-Israeli war for a brief time, but the UN forced them to give it back to Egypt. He emphasizes that they have always wanted that back. Speaker 1 contributes: “Because if they can control the Suez Canal and take that away from Egypt and they can force all the Gulf states to run all their oil through Israel. Israel controls the world, and that's their ultimate objective. That's the objective of this war.”

The speaker discusses a theory that a horrible event was falsely attributed to Muslims, when in fact it was carried out by a cunning and ruthless Israeli individual. They claim that this theory is not their own, but rather based on a US army report published the day before 9/11. The report allegedly warned about Israel's capabilities. The speaker invites criticism but emphasizes that this information comes from an official source.

The speaker reveals a surprising reason why America, the UK, and France support Israel. Contrary to popular belief, it's not about oil but rather the Suez Canal. Egypt currently owns the canal and earns $9 billion annually from it. The Americans, British, French, and Israelis want a share of this profit. To achieve this, they plan to build the Ben Gurion Canal by nuking a rocky area in the Middle East. This new canal would allow two ships to pass simultaneously, unlike the current Suez Canal. It would empty into the Mediterranean at the northern point of Gaza, resulting in the displacement of Palestinians to the south.

- Shortly before the attack, the government allegedly ordered the removal of all military presence from the area, giving Hamas a “free pass” to enter and begin their operation. In the following videos, former Israeli Defense Force (IDF) members warn that something very concerning is happening in Israel. - Afat Fenningzon reports, dated 10/07/2023, that Israeli defense forces around Gaza were instead positioned around the West Bank due to security concerns, leaving the Gaza envelope unoccupied. He says about 60 to 80% of that area was left without IDF forces. He notes that a year earlier there was a Gaza operation to prepare for such events, and ongoing trainings for these scenarios exist. This raises questions about Israeli intelligence: two years ago there were successful deployments of underground barriers with sensors to alert on terrorist breaches, yet there was zero response to the border and fence breaching. He emphasizes that Israel has a highly advanced military and questions how there could be no indication of what was coming, given that a cat moving near a fence would trigger forces. He asks, “What happened to the strongest army in the world? How come border crossings were wide open?” He describes the chain of events as very unusual and not typical for the Israeli defense system. He calls the current government highly corrupt and asserts the previous one was no better, stating his goal is to expose evil forces. He characterizes the surprise attack as seemingly a planned operation on all fronts and, if he were a conspiracy theorist, would say it feels like the work of the deep state. He suggests the people of Israel and the people of Palestine have been sold to “higher powers,” acknowledging how difficult the reality is to fathom. - Speaker 2 questions how the strongest army and the most sophisticated intelligence in the world could allow a few hundred Hamas fighters to enter Israel and cause the attack, while Hamas fighters did not meet any Israeli resistance in the area. He asserts it is not logical and implies there is more behind it, suggesting Israel sacrificed its own people and civilians on the Gaza border, removed protection and the army, and allowed Hamas to carry out their actions. He reiterates that Israel has the most sophisticated intelligence and a strong army, yet such an incursion occurred, implying hidden mechanisms or plans at work.

The Israeli hard right government has a mandate, and the speaker says they are “going to try to ethnically cleanse Gaza,” while also claiming Israel is talking about removing 2.5 million people from there. The speaker further states that the government has a mandate to “go seek justice and revenge,” and argues that the idea they need a truce or a peace treaty is “morally crap,” referencing what they say they have seen involving women and children being burned alive and dragged to the streets. The speaker then emphasizes their personal “pattern recognition” over the last five years, citing COVID, the Maui fires, and Epstein. They say that when they see a story and it “doesn’t click,” their “guts” are usually right. They also say they have been to Israel many times and describe the country as a fortress, claiming that at the Gaza border “you cannot go 10 feet without running into a 19-year-old with an AR-15 or an automatic machine gun that is an IDF soldier.” They also claim the entire country is surveilled. They then provide political context, saying they do not discuss Israeli politics often and that most Americans do not know it. The speaker claims that over the last nine months, Israel was “on the brink of civil war,” describing protests and street demonstrations involving hundreds of thousands of Israelis. They connect this to what they say was Benjamin Netanyahu redefining the Israeli constitution, stating that Netanyahu said the judicial branch has too much power and that planned protests against Netanyahu were expected to draw tens of thousands this week. The speaker says those protests “are all gone,” and claims Netanyahu has now formed an emergency government and has a mandate to lead. The speaker says they are “not willing to say” that Netanyahu knew or that there was intelligence “here,” but they say serious questions need to be asked. They ask whether there was a “stand down order,” stating “Was there a stand down order? Six hours?” They frame this as part of the questions they believe should be asked, alongside the earlier claims about the Israeli government’s mandate and the situation described at the Gaza border.

Speaker 0 asserts that “What happened in October 7 was an Israeli setup,” and questions whether Benjamin Netanyahu deliberately boosted Hamas to prevent a Palestinian state. The question is framed as a direct challenge: “Yeah. Sure. He deliberately and systematically even even told this on record. Whoever wants to avoid the threat of a two state solution has to support my policy of paying protection money to the Hamas.” The removal of ambiguity is emphasized by the speaker’s phrasing that this was done “with the permission of our prime minister” and involved letting Qatar transfer a huge amount of money in cash, “probably more than $1,400,000,000,” with the claimed effect of increasing Hamas’s power. Speaker 0 then shifts to interrogate a separate line of inquiry, asking whether there was a “stand down order,” repeating the question: “Was there a stand down order? Six hours? I don’t believe it.” The speaker emphasizes realism by labeling the question as legitimate and non-conspiratorial: “Was did somebody in the government say stand down? That is a legitimate non conspiracy question.” The closing remark asserts a collective identity and responsibility: “The whole country is the IDF. The whole country is.”

The speaker expresses concerns about American aircraft carriers, referencing the USS Liberty and the Israeli government. They mention “allegedly, the Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft… they did end up paying out the American government.” The speaker worries about a false flag operation: “a missile comes out of Gaza… hits one of our aircraft carriers, but it was actually Israeli missile.” They say, “we should get out of there.” In response, they remark, “It doesn’t matter where the missile comes from,” and then react, “that’s weird, Holy shit.”

The speaker states that the attack on Liberty was not a pure case of mistaken identity and was not pure error. They argue that it’s time for the state of Israel and the United States government to provide the crew members of the Liberty and the American people with the facts of what happened and why it came about that the Liberty was their child thirty years ago to ready.

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.