TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Hi. My name's John. And despite how upset I seem sometimes, I have no intention or desire to take my own life. So a plane a private jet took off about twenty minutes, maybe less, after Charlie Kirk was shot yesterday. This is the jet, N888KG. Do you notice how it's only made literally one flight this entire year? One flight. That's the only listed flight. Here's the website for the company it's registered under. Looks like they're scrubbing that shit. Here's the building where the company is registered. There's all the companies associated with it. Here's proof that the registration is real. Here's the distance between the airport where the private jet took off and where Charlie was shot. It's walking distance. And here's the guy who owns the jet.

The Pentagon hides billions of dollars, with no accountability or audits. We've never received a satisfactory explanation. To uncover the truth, someone will likely have to leak information online before being silenced—a scenario I've often predicted.

Speaker 0 says, "And I don't know how the executives over at Turning Point USA sleep at night." He adds, "No matter what the cost is, you tell the truth. That's it." He alleges that "about forty eight hours before Charlie Kirk died, Charlie informed people at Turning Point, as well as Jewish donors and a rabbi, that he had no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause outright" and that he "refused to be bullied anymore by the Jewish donors." He challenges TPUSA to answer: "Did he express that? Did he also express that he wanted to bring me, Candace Owens, back because he was standing up for himself?" He asks for "'the name of the Jewish donor who sponsored the Hamptons weekend'" and whether there were LLCs paying Rob McCoy. He asserts, "Charlie did not die pro Israel. He did not die for Israel," noting that "Friends of Israel were pressuring him really badly." He vows to expose lies and ends, "Somewhere, Charlie is watching."

Charlie mentioned Tucker and Candace forty eight hours earlier as they were trying to control who he's allowed to speak to. He was worried that Israel was infringing upon speech in America; "I have text messages to that effect." He was genuinely pro Israel; "there was nothing. there was not payment that was coming in." Toward the end, he was "over it towards the end because of Jewish behavior". Less than forty eight hours before he died, "Charlie announces that he has no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause because of Jewish donors and their behavior living up to these stereotypes." We never said "Israel killed Charlie Kirk." "I am uncomfortable with how many lies people that support Israel have been telling in the wake of his death."

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 speaker discusses Erica Kirk and a sequence of variant names connected to her. They begin by asserting familiarity with Erica Kirk and then pivot to a narrative about Erica Fransve (her birth name) and Erica Kirk (the name after marrying Charlie in 2020). The central question posed is: who is Erica Chelsvig? Key claims and sequence: - Erica Fransveig was her maiden name; Erica Kirk was her name after marrying Charlie in 2020; Erica Chelsvig is described as a name she supposedly bore at another point in time. - The speaker asserts they learned the name Erica Chelsvig only two days after Charlie Kirk’s funeral, after being awakened at 02:30 in the morning. - They claim to have been a large Erica Kirk fan prior to this discovery, and that the “truth” about Erica Chelsvig had emerged suddenly and unexpectedly. - The speaker alleges that information about Erica Chelsvig has “officially scrubbed from the Internet” the very next day, and that only the speaker’s aunt managed to discover and retain it. - They state that, despite being on vacation, the world will learn who Erica Chelsvig is, but not via a Google search. - The speaker asks, “So who is Erica Chelsvig auntie?” and then outlines a backstory: Erica Fransveig (maiden name); Erica Kirk (name after marriage); Erica Chelsvig (name in between, or at another point). - They note that the Chelsvig name is Romanian and remark on the odds of that, calling the world an evil place and suggesting not everything is what it seems. - The speaker claims that Erica Kirk, Gronzevay, Chelsbank, formerly, is “accidentally spilling the beans one by one,” and asserts that what is done in the dark will come to light. - They emphasize their belief that the truth is true when it needs to be scrubbed from the Internet, and question why it would be scrubbed if there wasn’t something to hide. - A further variation is mentioned: “Erica Kerr, formerly Chelsvig,” and with it, a prompt to “screenshot and read the rest” while on vacation. - The speaker reiterates that “what used to be on the Internet” was removed days after Charlie’s funeral, and that when the holy spirit speaks, you listen and you screenshot, and the truth will always come to life.

Candace ain't lying, guys. I know it for a fact. None of us really know. 'they're literally telling us to look at the wall that is purple and say and we say it's purple and they say, no. No. No. Look closer. It's it's yellow.' 'How do we best honor Charlie's death and legacy than figuring out who the hell killed him and why and how?' 'There is absolutely something going on in that organization. There was something going on prior to his assassination. There's absolutely something going on right now, and they do not want us to know.' 'This is a real source. This is a real text message.' 'We fight to figure out what the hell it is they don't want us to know.' I hope that helps.

"Candace ain't lying, guys. I know it for a fact." "We all know that these narratives they're spinning out that they're putting out don't make any sense. They don't make any sense at all." "We don't know who killed him, why it was done, or how it was done." "None of us really know." "If you're actually believing what these people are telling us, you're cooked." "No. No. No. Look closer. It's it's yellow. What are you talking about?" "How do we best honor Charlie's death and legacy than figuring out who the hell killed him and why and how?" "There is absolutely something going on in that organization." "There was something going on prior to his assassination." "There's absolutely something going on right now, and they do not want us to know." "We fight to figure out what the hell it is they don't want us to know."

The speaker recounts a chain of rumors and revelations following Charlie’s assassination at Turning Point USA. Water cooler chatter and tip-box tips revealed that several insiders were troubled by management and behavior at the organization, and one rumor stood out: Justin Strife allegedly placed an immediate phone call to a donor prospect on the day of Charlie’s death. The caller was speculated to be connected to a donor who had “a pretty big piece of bait on the hook for Turning Point USA”—a billionaire-level investment tied to the company’s potential IPO, described as life-changing money, possibly in the billions. This donor was said to be French American, named Pierre, with the speaker later realizing the donor could be Pierre DuPont, after mentioning the DuPont family in previous coverage. Only a handful of people were said to know about this secret, implying it was highly top-secret within the donations department, to the point where some involved at Turning Point USA had no knowledge of it. The speaker pursued corroboration with multiple sources at Turning Point USA, seeking to identify which donor was so central and why an immediate call would be significant. The possibility that a donor could be so influential as to impact an IPO and be worth billions raised questions about why such an offer would be on the table and whether Charlie himself knew about it. The speaker notes that billionaires typically do not part with money in this way, especially by offering pieces of their company to non-family members, amplifying the sense that the situation was troubling and entangled in dark, secretive dealings. Additionally, the speaker mentions another line of inquiry involving Andrew Colbert, a close family friend. A contact allegedly told the speaker that Andrew claimed Charlie’s refusal of “Bebe” caused him to miss out on millions, which the speaker flags as another rumor to be investigated. The broader concern is understanding the financial and contractual framework behind these tips and whether compensation or “tips” related to donations might be influencingPR decisions. The speaker underscores the need for transparent answers about who Pierre is, whether the donor is indeed Pierre DuPont, and how an IPO-sized fortune could be on the line. The emphasis is on demanding a clear explanation of these alleged connections, the nature of the secret, and the implications for Turning Point USA. The unresolved questions are framed around Pierre, his identity, and the alleged secret that could have changed the organization’s finances and leadership dynamics.

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.

"They said come to Israel, meet with me. Charlie Kirk said no. Now he's dead." "Bill Ackman is a Wall Street Jewish billionaire." "after October 7, Bill Ackman shifted to the right. He put a million dollars behind Trump and became very active in Republican politics even though he's a lifelong Democrat." "When the FBI could not locate the alleged gunman on Wednesday, do you know who stepped up and offered a $1,000,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of Charlie Kirk's assassin? Bill Ackman." "the $1,000,000 will be paid out to the alleged killer's father." "Tyler Robinson was allegedly turned into law enforcement by his father." "I see a bit of a conflict of interest there." "That needs to be investigated."

Speaker argues Charlie Kirk’s “financial stake in the future of the company” and leadership of the faith division would matter, noting that if Charlie “decided one day to become Catholic” it would have financial implications. He says, “I never had a conversation that that Charlie was in the process of converting,” but claims “Rob in particular knew for an absolute fact that Charlie was done with Israel bullying him.” He presents alleged proof via a group chat two days before Kirk’s assassination, with nine people including Charlie and Rob McCoy; seven names withheld. In the chat, Charlie writes: “just lost another huge Jewish donor. 2,000,000 a year because we won't cancel Tucker.” “I cannot and will not be bullied like this.” “Leaving me no choice but to leave the pro Israel cause.” A donor writes: “please do not invite Candace.” Forty eight hours before Charles was assassinated. He says Charlie “did not back down” in the Hamptons meeting or the text thread, and suggests donors may be driving the hosts, asking why Carlson and Kelly haven’t condemned them, calling it suspicious and alleging donors might be running them to “eulogize Charlie” who “never once flinched” from the Israeli cause.

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.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a conspiracy surrounding Charlie’s death, challenging the official narrative. - Speaker 0 says, “we definitely penetrated our water jugs,” and notes this won’t stop conspiracy theories. “His head fell off. I figured this is probably what would happen. I was trying to remain optimistic, but that right there is why people are skeptical on the official story.” They state, “The thirty aught six is a very hard round to stop.” - Speaker 1 adds that they want to illustrate what the federal government is selling, and asserts, “that particular bullet would have decapitated Charlie.” They describe the idea that the bullet ricocheted and went inward as “beyond ridiculous” and “insulting.” They criticize attempts to present a certain narrative with goofball public figures, saying, “they think that if they send out these, like, glee boys, like Nick Fuentes… then a bunch of hunters are gonna go, yeah. I see what you mean, man.” They declare that the scenario is never going to happen. - They foresee two possible outcomes: either the government will declare war on the American people because the public won’t accept their account, or they will have to “give us something that’s truthful.” They insist someone must come forward with something that makes sense. - Speaker 1 expresses a belief that the conspiracy is far-reaching, likening it to the JFK assassination, and claims that people close to Charlie are aware of things and “sold him out in many ways every single day.” They argue that the more the truth is avoided and the anxiety surrounding the night before Charlie died is downplayed, the guiltier those involved appear. - They state a conviction that the Deep State is involved in the assassination and that multiple states are implicated. They contend those responsible “don’t know what to do” and have “completely come undone” because they believed wealth and power would let them get away with it. However, they suggest “common sense seems to be ruling the roost.” Overall, the speakers argue that the official explanation is implausible, predict governmental evasions or manipulation, and contend that a deep-state-backed conspiracy involving multiple states may be uncovering itself as untenable under scrutiny. They emphasize the need for truthful disclosure rather than continued obfuscation.

Three people told me off record. Two have this in a written communication from Charlie. One, who was a Turning Point USA donor. The very day before Charlie Kirk died, he expressed that he thought he was going to be killed. He told these people, "I think they're going to kill me." He had not expressed that to me. So I am telling you this based off the testimony of three people. I hope those people come forward with that. Those conversations were off record; I honor that. But I am hoping that they will tell us who was they—Who is the they that he thought were going to kill him?

Speaker 0 expresses grief over Charlie Kirk’s death, acknowledging it’s been difficult and that Charlie may have been a political pawn. He notes Trump’s non-reaction as upsetting. John and Irina Mappin publish a public statement praising Charlie: "Charlie Kirk built Turning Point USA on transparency, free speech, and a relentless pursuit of truth." They state: "If Candace Owens had been assassinated, Charlie would have torn apart every lie" and "Charlie did not sleep for several days and several nights just to ensure that J. D. Vance became the vice presidential nominee." They condemn the investigation as troubling—"a crime scene apparently completely destroyed in days, and plenty of evidence that simply does not add up"—and urge officials to share everything with Candace’s team. "Justice needs not just to be done, it needs to be seen to be done justly," and they invoke "There is a relationship between truth and God." They praise Candace’s journalism, urge truth.

The discussion centers on four nonprofit entities linked to Turning Point: Turning Point USA, Turning Point Action, Turning Point Endowment, and America’s Turning Point. Three are 501(c)(3) organizations, Turning Point Action is a 501(c)(4). The difference highlighted is that 501(c)(3) organizations cannot engage in political activity, while 501(c)(4) can participate in up to 50% political activity; there is also Turning Point PAC, a 100% political activity entity. The speaker rejects the idea that having multiple nonprofit companies is normal, arguing that, typically, shell entities are created for distinct activities (e.g., Turning Point Endowment for investments; Turning Point Action as a 501(c)(4)), but questions why America’s Turning Point exists as a separate entity since its descriptions are similar to Turning Point USA and notes a key difference: Charlie Kirk managed Turning Point USA, while Tyler Boyer managed America’s Turning Point. The speaker suggests America’s Turning Point was created to provide Charlie Kirk plausible deniability and to give Tyler Boyer a separate 501(c)(3) that he could control, potentially without Kirk’s knowledge. The nine ninety form is cited as indicating that Turning Point USA’s other educational programs include campus leadership programs hosted by America’s Turning Point, with grants totaling $8,600,000. The speaker questions what those students are doing that costs $8.6 million and speculates that Tyler Boyer uses these students as a pipeline for work under his control. The speaker then posits a scenario: with the 2024 Trump election approaching, Boyer may need more people for ballot harvesting and could be transferring $8.6 million from Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA to America’s Turning Point to hire people for illegal political activity, presenting it as nonpartisan “get out the vote” work to avoid scrutiny. The claim is made that in photos there is no visible nonpolitical activity, prompting the assertion of likely illegality. Further allegations connect to Donald Trump, suggesting the letter with Trump’s alleged handwriting is important as evidence of misappropriated funds used for Trump’s campaign and a potential cover-up in which Trump would be involved. The speaker links this to Steve Bannon’s nonprofit fraud case, noting Bannon’s executives were charged for using funds for a different purpose than donors promised, and that Bannon’s outcome involved a guilty plea rather than prison, implying a harsher outcome for Turning Point’s leadership. The named individuals accused of knowledge or involvement include Tyler Boyer, CFO Justin Olson, Andrew Colvet, Blake Neff, and Erica Kirk, with a suggestion that anyone aware of the political activity and cover-up would face prison. The speaker calls for law enforcement action and criticizes Trump for allegedly tolerating election-related fraud among his associates, concluding with anger over the situation and a perceived hypocrisy.

"Charlie Kirk's assassination has deleted evidence that Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson haven't mentioned once." "This guy told the cops to arrest him so the shooter could have more time to get away." "This guy was deployed for 09/11, deployed against Obama, for George Bush, and personally worked with senators and US congressmen." "And he personally admitted it, and they wiped everything, but I downloaded it just before. George Zinn," "These donors like Manafort, Berman, Ronald Weiser, they manipulate elections, create countries, and have personally admitted to taking money from all of these countries." "Zinn, the patsy, is an example of an actor they use." "I have a full twenty seven minute video going over exactly what happened, why people like Candace Owens might be lying to you, and the archive podcast link in bio."

The speaker says there is a financial stake in the company tied to Charlie Kirk’s leadership of the faith division and notes concern if Charlie ever became Catholic, though conversion was not discussed. Rob McCoy allegedly knew Charlie was done with Israel bullying. He cites a group chat two days before Kirk’s assassination, with Charlie and Rob McCoy; he says he might release a name every day this week. In the chat, Charlie writes, "just lost another huge Jewish donor. 2,000,000 a year because we won't cancel Tucker. I'm thinking of inviting Candace." A second comment adds, "Jewish donors play into all of the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this. Leaving me no choice but to leave the pro Israel cause." The speaker notes it was "forty eight hours before Charles was assassinated" and that Charlie was "very clear and he did not back down" in Hamptons meeting or thread. He questions why others haven’t vindicated these claims and suggests donor pressure may be shaping coverage toward eulogizing Charlie as never flinching in support of the Israeli cause.

Speaker alleges that “within forty eight hours before Charlie passed away, his top Jewish donors were pulling funding from him, demanding that Charlie take their name off of the building that they had donated to Turning Point. And then once Charlie was killed, they said, never mind, put it back on the building.” He says Charlie had “alluded to a tremendous loss of money coming in” and that “more people are going to come out with information. This is all inevitable.” The speaker notes Beebe's PR blitz: “Beebe recently was on a PR blitz despite the fact that he was fighting this ninety six thousand front war because Israel didn't do nothing,” listing podcasts and asking, “Anybody find it weird you didn't do Charlie Kirk show?” Tomey is cited: “Charlie was implied that Charlie was penning love letters to him in May. I just love you so much.” He calls a “hostile takeover” and says after Charlie's death, supporters claim “the energy is Charlie died for Israel,” which is “literally untrue, and we're not going to allow it.” Okay? It's just not true.

- Charlie Kirk had no coroner's report, no church funeral, no burial site or grave, no official death certificate. Why has no official autopsy been conducted nor any findings released? No ballistics report, not a single eyewitness on the record, and an award winning widow already taking over his show? Why was the entire crime scene destroyed within hours, erasing vital evidence? - Why were there no paramedics on the scene? Why was Charlie Kirk's body removed and illegally flown out on Air Force Two? - Why did Donald Trump pardon a Navy SEAL killer whose shadow looms over this case? Why was the stadium mysteriously booked by Turning Point four months before his death? How was a massive high-tech stadium memorial produced in only eleven days? - Why do multiple women publicly appear as Erica Kirk, raising questions of identity? Why are there no birth certificates for their children? No names revealed. No faces ever shown. Where is a video of Charlie playing with his kids at a birthday party or picnic or any other family setting? - Why do framasonic and satanic symbols surround this tragedy with chilling precision? Interesting that the gun was found on property owned by Palantir. Isn't it interesting Cash Patel fired many of the heads of the FBI in that area days before the shooting? - Do you find it interesting that Charlie sold his house eight months ago for $5,000,000? If the father of your two young children was just brutally murdered for the world to see days ago, do you leave them home with a nanny while you go on podcasts grinning from ear to ear? - Is it not curious that a 17 year old first time Donald Trump beauty pageant contestant won, and now Trump appointed a top attorney general woman who has no experience who was also in his beauty pageant. This is only a fraction of the clues and evidence on this SIOP. For those of you brave enough to look at the evidence while removing the preconceived emotions, the conclusion is under

Charlie Kirk's perspective on Israel was not starting to shift. It had shifted entirely. Israel knew that. Turning Point USA knew that because Charlie was explicit. He wrote of his deep love for Israel. About forty eight hours before Charlie Kirk died, Charlie informed people at Turning Point, as well as Jewish donors and a rabbi that he had no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause outright. Charlie was done. He said it explicitly that he refused to be bullied anymore by the Jewish donors. Did he express that? Did he also express that he wanted to bring me, Candace Owens, back because he was standing up for himself? And then did he, just forty eight hours later, conveniently catch a bullet to the throat before our on stage reunion could happen?

Speaker accuses Turning Point USA of hiding the truth about Charlie Kirk's death and asserts: "Forty eight hours before Charlie Kirk died, Charlie informed people at Turning Point USA that he had no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause outright. Charlie was done. He said it explicitly that he refused to be bullied anymore by the Jewish donors." The speaker challenges TPUSA executives to issue a "very clean statement" saying "I am lying if this is not true." They ask, "Did he express that he wanted to bring me, Candace Owens, back...?" They contend, "Charlie did not die pro Israel. He did not die for Israel. He did not martyr himself as a friend of Israel." They claim "the friends of Israel were pressuring him badly" and declare, "the truth is going to win."

I’m going to state this, and I’m going to challenge Turning Point USA executives to issue a very clean statement saying that I am lying if this is not true. About forty eight hours before Charlie Kirk died, Charlie informed people at Turning Point, as well as Jewish donors and a rabbi, that he had no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause outright. Charlie was done. He said it explicitly that he refused to be bullied anymore by the Jewish donors. Did he express that? Did he also express that he wanted to bring me, Candace Owens, back because he was standing up for himself? Just forty eight hours later, a bullet to the throat. Charlie did not die pro Israel. He did not die for Israel. He did not martyr himself as a friend of Israel. The truth is going to win.

Shortly after that speech, there was a very intense attack on Charlie. He had $100,000,000 worth of donors and was dependent on them, since it's a nonprofit and he worked on projects beyond yapping on the Internet. A small, intense group tormented Charlie Kirk until the day he died, though many were supportive. Two days before he died, he lost a $2,000,000 donation because he had publicly pledged to bring me to the next Turning Point Conference in December. He told me over the past couple of months, he was losing a lot of donations over that pledge. They put out a flyer basically saying that I was gonna be at this event giving a speech, and he would text me, 'man, I'm really taking a lot of heat for this, and people are really mad.'