TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Two options dominate the analysis: "this is more or less what we have been told it is"—a lone shooter—versus "a high level state operation" possibly "originating from within the US government or from Israel." The speaker dismisses speculative tech conspiracies as "unnecessary" and argues the core fact is "Charlie Kirk was brutally murdered, in front of a crowd." He argues a sniper from an elevated position fits the video evidence, while critiquing alternatives like drones or exploding lavalier mics as illogical. He notes Netanyahu was "the first world leader to report it" and suggests that could indicate "direct communication with somebody at the hospital." He contemplates Israeli motives, including influencing TPUSA, and asserts "antisemitism laws" as a possible tool. He concludes there are two options and urges action against "leftist violence" and calls to "get rid of AIPAC and the ADL" to focus on America.

So while the rest of the country is told to beware, be cautious of the Trans Tifas, the radical left, the lone gunman with the impossible rifle, Well, the killer, just as I originally thought, was point blank and amongst us the entire time, but more importantly amongst Charlie Kirk in his inner circle. And that's how the nefarious ways of the Mossad of Israel control the narrative.

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

The speaker questions the audience about whether the answer to who killed Charlie Kirk and what happened on September 10 is “very clear.” Even among those who believe Tyler Robinson pulled the trigger, the speaker doubts the situation would be described as “very clear.” The speaker notes that Erica Kirk believes it to be clear, and suggests this represents the “final stop” of a PR campaign, with Erica being brought out to signal to the public that her judgment cannot be questioned. The speaker rejects what he calling emotional manipulation and wants to give people permission to avoid the trap of feeling obliged to share Erica Kirk’s conclusions simply because she is a widow and the public cannot cry or question her judgment. The speaker contends that the story presented thus far “makes little sense, if any sense,” and asserts that it “makes, I think, no sense.” To that end, he signals that later in the show they will discuss Tyler Robinson, who has now made his first in-person appearance in court. He frames this as “the good news” that Tyler Robinson exists, indicating a forthcoming discussion of his court appearance.

There’s a theory that 'he got shot with a palm pistol from the side or that there was a guy giving hand signals to kill Kirk in front of the livestream.' The event was livestreamed, and the speaker says their 'master plan in front of an audience of thousands that are all filming in front of a livestream was to have the shot caller next to Kill him. Kill him now. Take the shot now.' They question whether the thousands in attendance would 'recall I hope no one notices this,' asking, 'like, that was their plan?' The plan allegedly included 'a palm pistol like this' and to choreograph it 'in front of all the cameras' to be 'kill him. Kill him.' The speaker adds, 'the level of retardation' and notes 'schizos' as context for why 'no one wants to say it.'

Law enforcement update on the assassination of Charlie Kirk notes new information but many questions remain. Authorities point toward a left-wing political assassination tied to Kirk’s right‑wing views, especially on transgender issues. Circumstantial evidence includes the timing—shot after the transgender issue was raised; bystanders celebrating for cameras; internet chatter suggesting prior knowledge or planning of a political hit. It’s described as potentially a professional job and premeditated, with a shot to the jugular; the possibility of master shots or a trans military ban is mentioned but deemed unlikely. The narrator says two things can be true: leftist activists could be framed by a professional hitman. Public trust in government is low; there have been conflicting statements from FBI and local law enforcement about custody. There are reports of celebratory reactions from liberals on mainstream media and campuses; the speaker calls it a dark day and promises more updates.

"all these Internet experts are sure that it was a professional hit against Charlie Kirk." "Firstly, professionals are trained to aim for the center of scene mass." "Neither the center of scene mass or the head was hit." "The round landed here from what I saw." "The shooter got lucky." "Secondly, 200 yards is not that big a distance to make." "and there was even an exfil roof." "If you really wanna analyze these sorts of situations, team, stop looking at the shot." "Check out the planning, check out the prep, and even the exfil route." "Time will tell, I guess."

The speaker addresses claims that Israel is involved in Charlie Kirk's death and reviews the FBI's official narrative that "it was Tyler Robinson, this 22 year old leftist with a transgender boyfriend." He discusses the circumstantial case that "Israel played some role" but admits "we don't really have the information we need" and "we can't trust the FBI." He notes "There have been some tall claims ... not fully substantiated by evidence" and points to Max Blumenthal as "the source of this idea," citing "the article with unnamed sources, anonymous sources that create this narrative that Charlie Kirk was on the verge of flipping on Israel and is effectively implying that the donors wanted him dead." He covers the Bill Ackman meeting, saying "Charlie Kirk walked away from this meeting ... feeling blackmailed, feeling afraid," yet adds "we now have receipts and testimony and names about that meeting" showing "Charlie Kirk organized the event and it was fine." "I don't trust Max Blumenthal... This guy's a left wing Jew." "And you know who's implicated in this killing? The left."

Donors give money to TP USA. TP USA loans 350,000 of that into a company Charlie owned. That company uses it to buy a premium on a jumbo life insurance policy on Charlie's life. Once he dies, TP USA recoups its loan. The leftover millions go to whoever Charlie named his private beneficiaries. The payout was somewhere around 20 to 50,000,000 upon his death. The nonprofit pays the premiums now. The family gets paid later. The nonprofit merely recoups its loan. And often, the insured doesn't pay a dime, so the donor money does. The payout only triggers when the insured passes away. In short, charity money basically becomes a death benefit jackpot for private beneficiaries. The question is who controls the structure. The policy isn't owned by TPUSA. It's owned by a shell company called GGLF twenty twenty three LLC, owned by Charlie Kirk. So the main thing is they didn't run this through TP USA's books. They tucked it away in a Wyoming shell where nobody can easily see who benefits. All this comes from TP USA's own publicly available form 990. So it's a mailbox. All of these billionaires do this. Trump does this. Epstein did this. They use a trust, and smart people actually do this to keep the government's hands off of your hard earned money. A lot of people do. Yep. And it's legal. Like I said, you just search it up. This is just their paperwork. It's filed under oath. The shell company formed in May 2023, and that became public only recently, and then Charlie was assassinated. These people are covering up the truth behind what happened on September 10. And I've heard a lot of people saying, well, I don't believe that Charlie Kirk is dead. I believe that he's secretly alive somewhere. That's what it's sounding like. And until we see how these were set up, who's profiting from this, then we won't know. And Erica Kirk can absolutely show us, but they don't seem like they wanna show us anything. It's gonna continue to happen where people are gonna speculate, well, is Charlie Kirk privately sitting on an island somewhere with 20 to 50,000,000 and we don't see the kids because they're with him? Right. People are gonna continue to say that. If these people do not become transparent and start saying the truth, then how can they fault anyone for speculating? Because what we do know is that they're lying. So, of course, we're going to do our research. We're going to look into things. We're going to investigate. We're going to come to our own relevant conclusions. And if they are right or wrong or indifferent, we won't we'll never know because these people won't just tell us the truth because they are liars and frauds, they're the profiteers of Charlie's death on September 10.

"I don't know who did this. And I sure hope that it was not from the left that would be better." "But it doesn't matter because the first Trump assassination also was not from the left." "It was just a guy who was going to also had Biden on his target list." "And it's been made in the ideology of this far right that you're seeing online." "It's part of a line, Brett Kavanaugh, Trump assassination, how Charlie Kirk," "It doesn't matter that it wasn't from the left because that part has been erased in the common litany of grievances." "Absolutely." "I mean, it's just it's just about the, momentum of violence. Right?" "If one side keeps punching, that's bad, that's really bad." "But it's much worse when one side punches, the other punches back." "That causes an escalation."

Speaker claims that while the rest of the country is told to beware, be cautious of 'Trans Tifas, the radical left, the lone gunman with the impossible rifle, or the killer,' the killer 'just as I originally thought, was point blank and amongst us the entire time, but more importantly amongst Charlie Kirk in his inner circle.' The speaker suggests that this contrast between warnings and the perceived presence of the killer implies a narrative dynamic in which the stated threats are superseded by the reality 'amongst Charlie Kirk in his inner circle.' It concludes that this demonstrates 'the nefarious ways of the Mossad of Israel control the narrative.'

A discussion centers on the claim that 'Charlie Kirk got shot and killed,' with participants reacting. One says 'Happy. Goodbye,' and another adds 'That's good that people are getting shot just off a political view.' The conversation repeats 'Charlie Keurig got shot and killed today,' and someone replies 'Girl, someone had to do it.' Others call the target 'he was a misogynist.' When asked if they'd press a button to prevent it, one says 'Nope. I think things happen for a purpose.' A speaker predicts media framing: 'the left has dispute so much hate and brainwashed so many people into doing stupid shit like this.' They claim 'he deserved it' and call it 'a sign of what liberalism has done to US society. It's just led to a complete moral decay and decay of morals and just any semblance of humanity.'

Who killed Charlie Kirk? At the young age of 31 years old, he had already founded and ran the largest conservative youth organization in the country. I do not believe we have anything near the real story about the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk last week. The narrative presented by the FBI and other government agencies is wildly contradictory with an ever changing plot line that makes little sense. Some individuals close to Kirk have reported that his foreign policy position was shifting away from the standard neoconservative militarism in favor of a more noninterventionist approach. Was Charlie Kirk murdered directly or indirectly by powerful forces who could not tolerate such a shift in views and such an influential leader? We don't know. But no army or assassin can stop an idea whose time has come. Rest in peace.

And then we're supposed to believe that he had that dramatic switch. So he went from, I'm done to, like, hey. Love you. How can I be of more service to you? And then in that exact same day, he was texting people saying they are gonna kill me. That same night before Charlie Kirk was murdered and had been telling people he thought Israel might try to kill him, his wife, Erica, begged him to wear a bulletproof vest due to death threats he'd been receiving the previous year. Given that Charlie himself thought these threats were credible enough to merit extra security and his wife thought they were credible enough to wear a bulletproof vest. And given that he'd previously singled out Israel as perhaps wanting to kill him, we, the public, should demand an immediate and full disclosure of all of these threats and a complete investigation.

Something's wrong. I know I shouldn't do this. I'm risking an awful lot to go up against this FBI, the MAGA FBI. There was no rifle in his hand. It is not easy to remove a Mauser barrel or index it after reinstalling and remain accurate. The photo of the rifle allegedly left in the woods has the barrel installed. So we're supposed to believe a guy is on the run after killing Charlie Kirk and he pauses in the woods to reinstall a barrel. I don't believe a word of it. I can't take the bullshit from this fucking government. It's lying to us. Something's wrong with this whole fucking picture. Sean Hannity immediately, that pimp scumbag goes on the air and repeats the government lie that lousy son of a bitch. I don't buy one word of this narrative, not one single word.

Speaker asserts that 'Israel killed Charlie Kirk' and rejects influencer denials. They claim a plane 'left the airport... for forty five minutes' and then headed away, 'owned it? A big time rich Jewish donor.' Benjamin Netanyahu is described as nervous, with 'No. No. We didn't do this.' It was 'the Islamist, the extremist, just like he did nine eleven.' They add 'Guess who did nine eleven?' Benjamin Netanyahu. The shooter claim: 'the rifle was in his pants' and 'the scope back on' after; 'the gun they planted... was not the gun' and 'the scope was mounted too far back to even shoot it.' They call the shooter a 'professional shooter' hired by Israel at '140 yards.' 'Candice Owens said that on her show.' The speaker argues Kirk was waking up to these things and was afraid Israel would kill him, and they did.

So you know the kid who was asking Charlie Kirk a question when Charlie got shot? Remember him? Everyone's feeling bad for him? Yeah. There's video footage of him practicing his reaction before it happened. So when Charlie got shot, you know, his reaction was to put his hands on his head, look shocked, shake a little bit. Yeah. He was doing that. He was practicing that in the crowd, and here's the freaking video. How are you gonna deny what you just saw there? How? And you already know what question, you know, he was asking Charlie. Right? Remember that? This just confirms what a lot of us have been thinking and what we all think actually happened. Sick.

The conversation centers on a controversial, conspiratorial claim that Charlie Kirk’s death was not caused by a rifle shot but by an exploding lavalier microphone containing a shaped charge, a military-style operation allegedly planned and executed with broad involvement and cover-up elements. Key points and assertions heard in the exchange: - The speakers reject the official narrative of a lone shooter, Tyler Robinson, and insist Charlie Kirk was killed by an exploding microphone rather than a 30-06 rifle shot. They describe the supposed weapon as a Rode lavalier microphone whose battery and circuit board were propelled by an internal shaped charge, causing a neck wound and brain damage. - They argue that evidence at the scene—shrapnel, the microphone’s shattered front, a battery and circuit board ejecting from the wound, and a distinctive neck injury pattern—cannot be reconciled with a rifle entry wound. They claim blood on the scene came from Charlie Kirk’s brain, not from the heart or circulatory system, and that the blood’s appearance and pooling indicate immediate brain trauma rather than post-injury bleeding. - There is repeated emphasis on the “shirt deformation,” necklace snapping, and the presence of gas/plume around the collar as indications of a gas-expulsion event consistent with a high-energy explosion near the microphone, not a ballistic impact. - John Bray (Speaker 1) provides technical demonstrations and plans to reproduce the neck wound and shirt deformation via simulations and physical reconstructions. He discusses mapping movement with AI to show that the most intense movement centers around the microphone, and he argues that only a high-energy explosive could generate the observed energy transfer and rapid tissue response. - Bray describes reconstructing the microphone internals in CAD, evaluating the possibility of a shaped charge, and reconfiguring the microphone case to fit a charge without compromising microphone function. He mentions needing access to high-energy explosives and discusses potential sources, such as oil-and-gas fracture practices that employ shaped charges. - The discussion includes descriptions of how the battery and circuit board allegedly exited the neck wound, and how the neck wound’s rectangular shape and delayed bleeding could be explained by a blunt-force impact from a blast, with the battery briefly plugging the wound before exiting. - Bray asserts that the presence of shrapnel from the microphone in the SUV and on clothing, plus the trajectory of a magnetic clasp across the body, supports a single-source energy event around the microphone rather than a rifle shot. He claims the trajectory and timing make rifle-based explanations untenable. - The host and Bray discuss the roles of various people connected to Turning Point USA and alleged participants in a larger conspiracy. They mention Fort Huachuca and UVU as places linked to pre-event planning, and reference meetings and conversations involving high-profile figures and politicians. - There is extensive talk about the public reception and challenges to their theory, including the difficulty of reproducing the exact trauma and wound dynamics, and the claim that mainstream or official narratives suppress or ignore the “truth” they see in the evidence. - Bray mentions ongoing work to replicate the neck wound within about 30 days and notes that reproducing the full explosive event is more complex, requiring careful selection and sourcing of appropriate high-energy materials. He emphasizes that even without replicating the exact explosion, reproducing the neck wound and shirt movement would be strong evidence against the rifle narrative. - The discussion veers into related political and media insinuations, including references to Epstein, the “pedophile cabal,” and Trump as an FBI informant, which are used to reinforce a sense of systemic conspiracy and media distrust. They propose public-facing dissemination of their findings and invite support, including promoting Bray’s work and related self-sufficiency projects. - Toward the end, the speakers discuss the possibility that Tyler Robinson may have been recruited or used as a patsy, with Bray suggesting he might have been promised online notoriety or other incentives, while insisting that Robinson is not the sole killer and that the microphone theory better accounts for the observed evidence. Overall, the transcript presents a tightly woven narrative that disputes the official account of Charlie Kirk’s death, contending that a high-energy explosive integrated into a microphone caused the fatal injury and that the visible physical effects—shirt movement, neck wound, collar gas, shrapnel, and blood patterns—are inconsistent with a gunshot wound. It foregrounds technical schematics, CAD reconstructions, and AI-based motion analysis as the basis for proving the claim, while describing a broader, conspiratorial project to expose a supposed government-orchestrated cover-up.

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

From a trusted source connected to three-letter agencies, the speaker says Charlie Kirk was shot in Utah today and died; 'he's dead.' They claim 'they killed him. The left killed him.' The report cites a high powered rifle, and says the reason his chest lifts is the effect of the bullet hitting him in the neck. The speaker notes Kirk was 'out there at the campuses getting millions of young people to vote for Trump,' and argues 'the left cannot allow this.' He cites 'John Podesta plan was if Trump got reelected to launch a civil war' and says this is 'live now'—they're going to try to kill Trump again. He asks for prayers for Kirk, his family, and America, 'because more is coming.' He plans to bring the source on air; the source has been accurate; he's dealing with his father's heart surgery. 'Charlie Kirk's dead, folks.'

"It's gonna come out." "There would have to and I wouldn't put it past you. You'd have to get rid of all of us." "You'd have to ethnically cleanse 7,000,000,000 people to forget the Charlie Kirk story." "It's no one's forgetting it." "Not the ballistics guys on YouTube that we're all listening to, but no one's no one's gonna let this one go because and by the way, that's your fault." "In 1963, when JFK was shot, people didn't watch it on TikTok." "People mostly read about it, and then the feds lied about it." "You traumatized all of us." "You assassinated Charlie Kirk in front of the entire world." "This is the Internet generation." "K? We're running this." "We're not calming down. We're pretty upset, and we're gonna stay upset."

Sean Morley asserts 'That is Charlie Kirk's assassin' and analyzes footage to claim the man who murdered Charlie Kirk is Charlie Kirk's 'paid security guy,' who is supposed to watch the crowd but is seen 'staring downwards off into nothingness' until the signal to shoot. He describes the moment as the arm straightens, the gaze turns to Charlie, and a 'palm pistol' in a clenched fist is aimed at his center mass. The palm pistol allegedly fires, with a theory that the bullet hit Charlie's neck after ricocheting off a cross on his neck. The attacker then hides the palm pistol in the left tricep area and exits 'empty handed' to aid Kirk. The speaker calls the 22 year old kid 'being railroaded by the government,' labels him a 'government hitman,' and says 'this man needs justice.' He urges sharing the video and provides Monero/Bitcoin QR codes for tips.

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

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

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