TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Charlie Kirk was just shot and has now passed away while he was debating at the Utah Valley College. This happened during a live stream; the speaker was editing a video and about to upload it, and is stunned. The speaker questions, "For speaking the truth?" and asks, "Are you fucking kidding me right now?" The channel is described as not political, focused on positivity, makeup, sarcasm, jokes, trolling, clapping back, being fun. The speaker says Charlie Kirk was a grown man who fought for the truth, who went all around our country debating people, debating people of all walks of life, walks of religion, walks of duality. "He debated everybody." The speaker admonishes viewers who say it wasn't the truth, calling them delusional, and notes, "Why did I respect him? Because he knows reality."

This week could be better. It would have to be. And we could move on to another story. That's how it usually works. But that doesn't feel right. And if we only wanted to give you cheap laughs, we'd just show you Brian Kilmeade's SAT scores. But unlike most stories that happen in life, the assassination of Charlie Kirk is immune to news cycles and short attention spans and unchanging media bias. That should have been true when Trump was shot, but because that story exposed the media's own complicity, it disappeared faster than Tim Waltz when a car backfires. But Charlie's murder exists now and forever, and his martyrdom resonates all over the world in marches and vigils.

The discussion centers on Charlie Kirk and the handling of his death. The speakers are uncertain about the official account and call for a truly rigorous and honest federal investigation. Specific points raised include: - A claim that Canada said Egyptian-registered aircraft followed Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, around for years in various places; the speaker asserts this is factually true and notes it is a very strange data point, though its meaning is unclear. - A claim that Erika Kirk’s event had a disproportionately large number of foreign-registered cell phones, which is also stated as true. - The speakers emphasize that the FBI has a moral and legal obligation to investigate openly and to consider all possibilities, applying the same process as in science, journalism, and law enforcement. They express a lack of confidence in the FBI and the officials who run it, and argue that honesty and a coherent narrative are needed to restore public trust. - Foreknowledge of the incident is discussed: posts on X allegedly predicted that Charlie Kirk would be killed on the date of the college event in Utah. The question is raised about whether those posts were just guessing and whether those involved have been interviewed by the FBI to determine how they knew what they knew. - The speakers compare the investigation to other events, suggesting that if they investigated, they would examine who publicly posted foreknowledge and seek detailed explanations: who they spoke to, what they know, and how to verify it. - There is a request for an explanation of how the killer transformed into a radical, violent actor, with a note that the speaker does not automatically endorse trans ideologies but wants to understand the radicalization process. - The speakers discuss Candace Owens’ role: the controversy and turmoil surrounding her claims, and the idea that those in authority are responsible for the investigation, not individuals like Candace or podcasters. - A concluding sentiment expresses greater trust in Candace Owens’ intent than in the average DOJ official, framing Candace’s presence as filling a vacuum left by authorities, while insisting that the people in charge must restore confidence through honest reporting and a plausible narrative.

Speaker 0 posits a theory that there were state actors or foreign intelligence agencies involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and attributes this belief to Benny Johnson, describing Johnson as “the anarchist” who told him so, and invites viewers to “check this clip out.” Speaker 1 responds by acknowledging that there is reason for people to believe this could be a professional hit job. They reference John Salmond as an excellent reporter and Steven Crowder as having access to leaked information. They state, “there is some considerable evidence that there were state actors involved here,” and emphasize their close connection to Charlie Kirk and his team, asserting that this is what they wish to relay to the audience. Speaker 0 returns to challenge Benny, asking which specific element changed his mind and led him to conclude that Tyler Robinson is now not a lone actor, and that state-level or foreign intelligence agencies were not involved in the assassination. He enumerates several potential clues: a text message from Lance Twiggs, similarities between Tyler Robinson’s photo and the jail mugshot, the speed at which Tyler Robinson was able to sprint, and the “man of steel” autopsy claim that Charlie Kirk stopped a 30-06 with his neck. He then asks which of these factors was decisive in shifting Benny’s belief away from the involvement of state actors, and expresses intent to wait for Benny’s answer.

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."

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.

The speaker urges Americans to pay attention and take notes, insisting that “every single person” pushing that “the left assassinated Charlie Kirk” is suspicious and that “something's not right here.” They claim it is “weird” that “alleged closet homosexuals are now putting their wives in their photo to try to, you know, make you not think otherwise,” and state “it's just my opinion” about Charlie Kirk being gay, adding “there's something weird about this dude” and “Mossad vibes all over it,” again noting it as their opinion and not a stated fact. They reference a claim from “Jack Wozobic says, new. Breaking. Breaking. New footage released of the Charlie Kirk aftermath murder,” dismissing it with “Come on, bro. Get out of here.” They vow to “never forget what the left did that day” and assert they “we won't,” while claiming the speaker’s own side is “not gonna forget what you've done every day since,” and that the situation “sure as hell ain't helping your boy, Charlie Kirk.” The speaker calls this moment “pivotal in American history” and expresses daily prayer that “Candace Owens comes with the receipts and the heat to just blow this investigation wide the hell open.” They urge that after the investigation, “project Mockingbird, Mockingbird Media,” and “every one of these scumbags should be investigated,” demanding scrutiny of “every penny, every dollar, where the money came from, where the funding's going, how they got it, who organized it, who helped fundraise for it, who campaigned for it.” They insist “every one of these shows should be mocked,” and claim they should have “no career in media,” be “humiliated,” and that these figures should become “the new Don Lemons when this is all over.” The speaker warns that if there is a cover-up or if “Israel was involved” and “these scumbags over here have been propagating this gosh damn lie,” then these media figures have been “dividing us, divide and conquer,” arguing that this rhetoric escalates rather than deescalates, and that such divisions expose that “they don't work on behalf of America, allegedly,” but “on behalf of a foreign gosh damn intelligence agency,” asserting they “should be treated like the traitors that they are.” They conclude with a sensational line: “Forty days later, there's people running away after Charlie Kirk was shot” and label “slop media, slop ink, con ink” as “gay.”

My sympathy to Charlie Kirk's family and to Charlie Kirk who obviously is, you know, become a target for somebody. I don't know whether it's political violence because I don't know who did it. I know they seem to have somebody in custody. But I will say that political violence unfortunately has been ratcheting up in this country. We saw the shootings, the killings in Minnesota. We've seen other political violence occur in other states, and I I would just say it's gotta stop. And I think there are people who are fomenting it in this country. I think the president's rhetoric often foments it. We've seen the January 6 rioters who clearly, you know, have tripped a new era of political violence.

Speaker discusses Charlie Kirk wearing a bulletproof vest, citing a confirmed source and a message on X: 'Carly Carly Trik arrived.' He says 'he was hit in the chest, which is what we saw' and that 'the bullet ricocheted up and went into the neck.' He asserts 'There was no side shooter' and that 'The main shooter we're looking at came from the front' and 'I don't think it was that Tyler dude' and 'I think that Tyler dude is a patsy' and 'I'm not buying the stuff that he was a lone shooter on the roof.' He labels counter theories as 'slop' and urges focus on CCTV footages, noting 'the FBI has told us' and suggesting the body was moved, asking 'Is anybody buying this?' He concludes 'I think that there is somebody much farther back than that' and 'the dude on the roof is a patsy.'

The speaker asserts that “the left wakes up tomorrow and realizes that somebody that agrees with them assassinated the equivalent of Martin Luther King junior” and that “they are celebrating right now.” He credits “Charlie Kirk started a movement, and he led that movement. And that movement changed the election. Without Charlie Kirk, president Trump does not win in 2024.” “The people whose minds he changed... they know it. And you just woke them up.” He calls it “the equivalent of assassinating Martin Luther King, and you'll never be able to live this down.” He warns of “the ones that are celebrating, the ones that are cheering, the ones that are excited and happy.” He asks, “who you are as a person that can allow you to watch somebody get assassinated... knowing his wife and his children were standing there watching, and you're cheering it.” “Because of words that he spoke, ideas that he had, which, by the way, are pretty standard ideas for all of millennia,” and that “you killed him.” “You just created a Martin Luther King, and you created 10,000,000 new Charlie Kirks at the same time.”

"It doesn't feel real." "I was not even a fan, not a friend, and actually an adversary, a foe." "We had a lot of differences, ideologically, politically, and we fought viciously." "Charlie Kirk never had a kind word to say about me in his life." "Now that he has died, I'll say some kind words about him." "In spite of that, it is undeniable that he was a towering figure in American conservatism." "He would take on almost any challengers." "And he did it all before the age of 31." "And ultimately that is why he was killed." "He was clearly a loving father, a loving husband." "He was beloved by millions of people." "God bless him." "I pray for the repose of his soul, for his family, for him."

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.

Participants discuss the news that Charlie Kirk was shot, with uncertainty about whether he is dead: "Murder for having a different opinion from somebody else." They note, "I haven't seen anything that said confirmed." Rumors about who shot him spur debate: "a supporter shooting their gun off in celebration"—"That's a crazy take." They stress we "We don't know any of full details of this yet" and that "it's not a tweet. It's not on their Twitter account" or anything, with clips shared by "Dave Portnoy reposted this." The mood is horror and condemnation: "Nobody deserves that." They condemn the culture of division, call out "paid propagandists masquerading as the news," and warn this event could either spur meaningful dialogue or fuel violence and fear. The speakers fear the impact on political courage and discourse.

Colin of Project Constitution sits down with Tyler (the interviewer’s name in the transcript isn’t consistently labeled; the speaker identifying themselves as “Speaker 1”) to discuss an in-depth, ongoing investigation into Charlie Kirk’s assassination and related events. The conversation covers timeline疑s, weapon analysis, hospital logistics, key individuals (notably Erica Kirk, Tyler Boyer, Terrrell Farnsworth, Candace Owens), and alleged foreign and domestic entanglements, with a focus on unfiltered details the team has uncovered. Key points and claims from the discussion: - Initial reaction and approach to Charlie Kirk’s assassination - The team initially accepted the FBI’s narrative but began seeing inconsistencies as reports alternated about suspect custody. Within days after the shooting, the crime scene was reportedly destroyed and the grass replaced with pavers at the university where Kirk spoke. - Video analysis reportedly shows the ground position of the shooter that the FBI cropped out, leading to questions about whether the shooter’s location and the weapon’s origin were accurately represented. - Weapon and ballistics questions - The team raised red flags about the reported firearm: a 30-odd-six was described, but ballistic experts argued that such a round would likely have killed or severely injured the target differently, prompting the theory that the weapon claim did not match the injuries observed. - The investigative team posits the use of an explosion intended to mimic past assassination patterns (e.g., MLK-era examples) and argues the actual kill injuries do not align with a 30-odd-six. - The team’s conclusion, based on crime scene photos, argues the presence of black shards and shards consistent with a microphone (a Rode wireless mic) that shattered on impact; burn marks on Charlie Kirk, and similar black shard traces observed in Candace Owens’ released SUV photos are cited as corroborating evidence. - They propose that an explosion occurred in proximity to the event, with a separate high-powered rifle shot possibly emitted by a drone—suggesting a drone sniper may have fired, not a ground-based shooter, and that the supersonic crack and potential muzzle flash were not from a conventional rifle fire but from a bullet transitioning from supersonic to subsonic speeds, creating a pressure cone. - Hospital choice and post-event handling - Charlie was taken to Tipanogos Hospital rather than a closer facility. Officials reportedly claimed this was to access a higher-grade trauma center, but the timeline questions why the closer hospital wasn’t used and how the decision was made in real time. - A witness (a landscaper at Tipanogos) described the sequence of events: an SUV delivering Charlie Kirk to the hospital, then a second SUV with Mikey McCoy entering through a doctor entrance and leaving, raising questions about who was picked up and where those individuals went afterward. - The FBI reportedly confiscated hospital security camera footage, which the team views as suspicious in a non-crime-scene context. - Candace Owens’ show highlighted an allegation that a surgeon attempted to access the body before Erica Kirk could see it; the surgeon allegedly faced FBI resistance to re-enter the patient area. There is a contested claim about “Superman neck” and whether the surgeon ever stated such language. - Erica Kirk: background, ties, and credibility - Erica is described as potentially military-trained and highly prepared; the team explored her past, tying her to Liberty University’s Falkirk Center and alleged trafficking connections, and to Romanian networks. They assert a pattern of deception—multiple inconsistent stories about how Erica and Charlie met, and extensive past relationships with multiple former partners. - They accuse Erica of deleting past social media and press content, pressuring photographers, and hiding past associations. - The team claims Erica has ties to a broader “Mormon Mafia” network tied to Mitt Romney, with connections to Utah and Arizona. They assert ties to CIA and other security entities, and claim involvement in trafficking and political influence networks. - Tyler Boyer, Terrell Farnsworth, and family/political entanglements - Tyler Boyer is described as deeply connected to the “Mormon Mafia” and as someone who previously ran Turning Point, with shell companies enabling political and charitable activities. The interview alleges he conducted surveillance on Colin and has conflicts of interest in Charlie Kirk’s case. - Terrell Farnsworth and his family connections are described as deeply entrenched in the network; Farnsworth’s stepfather reportedly held a senior position at Duncan Aviation, connected to alleged assassination logistics; Michael Burke (Farnsworth cousin) is identified as a top prosecutor connected to Tyler Robertson’s defense. - The discussion highlights a potential conflict of interest: Farnsworth’s cousin is the defense attorney for Tyler Robertson, creating a potential conflict, given Farnsworth’s role in the case and as a witness who allegedly handled the crime scene (removing SD cards and contaminating evidence). - Investigative aims and future directions - The team seeks a complete timeline that identifies every participant’s role and actions, both to present to the public and to pursue potential legal recourse. - They propose a documentary or comprehensive public analysis to expose alleged lies and inconsistencies and to push for accountability, either through court proceedings or public discourse. - They anticipate possible outcomes for Tyler Robertson’s case (conviction via public opinion, or a plea deal) and suggest the possibility of deeper CIA involvement in the radicalization and online manipulation processes surrounding the case. - They emphasize the risk to investigators and supporters, including concerns about surveillance, shadow banning, and potential threats or actions against prominent figures involved in the investigation. - Closing sentiment - Colin reiterates the importance of citizen journalism and collaboration with Candace Owens, Sam Parker, Baron Coleman, and others in pursuing truth and accountability. The interview ends with a pledge to continue the investigation and to keep the public informed as new information emerges.

"Charlie was brought dead to the hospital." "Charlie was being shot from on top." "No, it didn't go through." "It went down his spine, exploded in his heart. Fragments went in there, which makes sense." "That's what happens." "So this is ballistics." "I'm a ballistics expert." "Now understand. He's being shot from above." "But, absolutely, there's no way you get shot with 30 on six. It doesn't go through." "He shot from up high. He goes down and explodes." "His memorial's tomorrow in Arizona. We'll be covering it live." "I read a press report that got it wrong." "Let ballistic experts know we'll break it all down, but that's the facts as we know them right now." "God bless you all. God bless Charlie Kirk."

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.

A young military man did his job excellently and accidentally uncovered that our government was implicated in working with the cartels, not fighting them. He later realized that the government then fed him to the cartels, and he’s been on the run for his life for 35 years. Over the years he faced abusive litigation, harassment by narco attorneys, and police records that were allegedly disappeared. He has presented evidence of hitmen coming after him, and after decades he finally obtained his paperwork with the help of county clerks who retrieved records. In May 2025, the man, now 56 and with a new name, was released from a 35-year military-grade NDA. Deciding to confront his past, he travels from Washington back to the base where it began—Fort Huachuca, Arizona. He books a stay at Candlewood Suites on the base and arrives on September 8 at 5:37 PM. In the lobby he notices a Special Forces-looking person and a young woman who leave in a green pickup with him. The next morning, September 9, at about 5:30 AM, he goes off base to get coffee in Sierra Vista and meets soldiers wearing 10th Mountain Division patches. They tell him that Joint Task Force Six has continued as Joint Task Force Southern Border (JTF Southern Border) and that a building is being used as a temporary command center. He proceeds to the new JTF headquarters around 7:37 AM and meets two or three men who are friendly. He sees about 12 lieutenant colonels and notes the presence of a key figure who he believes is Brian Harpole. Allegedly, after this the situation escalates. The man is confronted by two captains who escort him out and subject him to a seven-hour interrogation, during which they suspect him of being a spy. He is accused of being a bomb threat due to alleged special forces or EOD connections, and he is gaslit to consider the possibility that he might threaten others or himself. After the interrogation, they conferenced with the base commander, verify that he is not there to spy on the meeting, and decide to send him off post. He drives to Tucson, finds a hotel, then flies home, with a stop in Salt Lake City where his wife mentions Charlie Kirk. The man says he happened to be in the Salt Lake airport when Candace, i.e., Candace Owens, was discussing strange flights, and she mentions Charlie Kirk. He provides documentation: high school diploma, military records, police records, NDAs, and court documents he’s fought to obtain for this story spanning 35 years. He recalls the commander in charge of force protection, whom he could only identify as Captain Neff (about 36, brown hair, gray-haired man with glasses), and he notes an incident number given by the Captain: 8611-2025MPC446, which he believes could be FOIA-requested. He emphasizes that this is not just about one conspiracy but ties to global trafficking and cartels, including potential government involvement at high levels. He says he’s not hiding anymore and that Charlie Kirk’s assassination coverage ties into this larger narrative. He asks for anyone who saw something or knows how to FOIA-request the records to come forward, providing the dates, times, and documents he has shared. He ends by thanking God and noting his intent to pursue further exposure and potential meetings with others connected to the case.

"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.

We think that Charlie Kirk just got shot in the neck. In real talk, I am not truly celebrating that he got shot in the neck. I think it's really sad for his family because I know he was a father. And if he does pass away from this, hopefully not, hopefully so, that is not good because bringing kids up in a broken family is never good. And gun violence, again, I think we should go back to having this conversation and who's allowed to have access to these guns because now public figures are getting shot left and right. I mean, it's not every other day, but truly, what a tragedy.

I spoke with Andrew Colvin, the official spokesman for DP USA, a confidant of Charlie Kirk. I put my report out about him talking to the surgeon that was there when Charlie was brought dead to the hospital, and Charlie was being shot from on top into the throat. He says it didn't go through, which makes sense, I think. It went down his spine, exploded in his heart. Fragments went in there, which makes sense, and fragments bounced back up. He claims, 'I'm a ballistics expert,' and argues this isn't a straight-on shot; it would hit bone and ricochet. We don't have answers yet. He dismisses rumors: 'Total total crap' about TPUSA. Memorial's tomorrow in Arizona; 'we'll be covering it live, and I'm gonna report the best information as I have it as it unfolds.' He apologizes for a misreport and notes Charlie Kirk shirts at Domain North Austin.

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.

Discussion centers on claims about the Charlie Kirk assassination, including a side shot. The presenter says "there's now a shooter on the roof" and an eyewitness states the shooter was "wearing tactical gear" and described "the exact type of weapon... a two two three round." A bystander video shows "somebody on the roof" and the eyewitness asserts the shooter was "highly trained, like a highly trained assassin" and that the footage's metadata "begins at 12:22 and goes into 12/23, the very minute that Charlie gets shot." The speaker adds the shooter "looked like a foreign agent" and "not jeans." Another claim: "the FBI's official story is false" with video of an "entry and exit wound," though another participant says "it's not blood splatter. That's literally his necklace getting snapped off and flying over the back of his neck." The discussion concludes with "Cash should resign."

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."