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 speaker recounts a sequence starting from a Catholic Mass for the Immaculate Conception, describing how a purposeful prayer led him to receive a piece of evidence he believes will help complete the story of a controversial assassination. An email arrives in his tips box from a young woman urging him to contact her friend, whom he calls Harry, who then shares a story the speaker says he has since fact-checked in parts and that is "legit" in its core elements. The speaker asserts Harry is honest about where he was and what he did, while descriptions of people come from Harry’s memory. Harry Myers, 35 years earlier, was a 20-year-old at the bottom of the military ladder attached to a brand-new command, Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6), created along the U.S.–Mexico border under President George H. W. Bush and promoted as a war on drugs. The context includes the Iran-Contra era scandals (1981–1986) and the presidency of Reagan, with George H. W. Bush as VP and later as president who emphasized drug enforcement at the border. Harry describes himself as a lowly “military sensor guy” assigned to Operation Catacomb, which covered half of Arizona and Mexico. He claims that within six days he planted sensors, translated data, and “skipped the chain of command” to provide proof of the first discovered Sinaloa Cartel underground rail tunnel, enabling a raid by a border patrol agent who could obtain a warrant without tipping off compromised commanders. Harry asserts that US and Mexican authorities discovered a tunnel 30 feet underground with equipment like an air compressor, a sump pump, a trolley, and a hydraulic jack; the tunnel connected a house in Agua Prieta to the U.S. side. He alleges that upper-level commanders were pictured with El Chapo and Felipe in the Mexican house, suggesting corruption. He says his information led to the tunnel bust, but afterward his superiors took credit, and he received only a small army medal. He claims that, after the bust, his information was fed to the cartels, and he and a Border Patrol agent were targeted. He alleges his ID was compromised, and he was placed in witness protection, under an NDA, but the protection was never followed up—“the ball got dropped.” Fast forward to May 2025, Harry, now using a new name, leaves his home in Washington to confront his past at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. He stays at a Candlewood Suites on the base on September 8. On September 9, he travels off-base for coffee in Sierra Vista and encounters soldiers from his old unit; they tell him the Joint Task Force Six has continued as JTF Southern Border. He enters the new JTF headquarters around 7:37 a.m. and notices many high-ranking officers (lieutenant colonels). Three men exit a meeting; one is identified by the speaker as Brian Harpole. The speaker claims the other two in the room accuse him of spying and conduct a seven-hour interrogation, attempting to gaslight him into admitting national-security wrongdoing. He recounts being accused of threats and being told to consider a bomb-threat scenario, then being escorted off post after base command involvement. Harry provides an incident report number (8612025-Dash-MPC446) and says Captain Neff led the interrogation; he suspects Neff may have military ties to another media figure’s connection. Afterward, Harry returns home via flight, stopping in Salt Lake City where Charlie Kirk’s name comes up, as the speaker was coincidentally hearing about Kirk during the trip. Harry insists he did the right thing by uncovering possible government involvement with cartels and claims extensive documentation—military records, police records, NDAs, judges—that support his testimony. The presenter links Harry’s story to a broader discussion of global trafficking and cartel-government collusion at high levels, while noting that Harry is now speaking publicly after 35 years of silence and believes there are more people who know something that could be FOIA-requested. The speaker suggests a personal, spiritual sense of movement and fate surrounding these revelations and expresses a desire for further investigation and potential meetings with others in the field.

Speaker 0 describes having friends in the US embassy in Belize and knowing what was coming. He says he arranged with the head of security to enter the embassy, but the head of security told him, “we have it from the highest authority. We are not to allow you entry into the US embassy. Understand me.” He asserts, “Who was the highest authority in the state department? Hillary Clinton.” He emphasizes that he is an American citizen with “a fucking American passport,” stating, “I'm sorry. I'm not wanted in America. I've got no crimes in America. Is it not reason to say, I don't think I'm gonna vote for you?” Speaker 1 notes, “And yet you're here now.” Speaker 0 explains that for a month and a half he was on the run. He claims the government wanted to collect him because, after they raided his property in 2012 in the jungle, they shot his dog, abused him, and destroyed “a half million dollars worth of my property over a bogus charge.” He says he was pissed off and then “donated too many secretaries within the government laptop computers, really nice ones that were preloaded with viral spyware.” He contends that within a week, “the entire government computer system was in under my control. I was watching, monitoring, listening.” He continues that he was looking for information that they had set him up for that raid, and he didn’t find that. Instead, he discovered that “the minister of national defense was the largest drug trafficker in all of Central America, and the minister of immigration, the largest human trafficker.” Speaker 1 responds, “We don't wanna get killed by them either, so we're probably not—” and Speaker 0 agrees, “You're not gonna,” adding, “That's fine.”

The video centers on Candace and a claim about Egyptian private military contractors being flown to America on a top-secret mission and landing at a private military base in Utah on the day of the Charlie Kirk assassination. The presenters show photos of private military subcontractors and describe them as the “baddest, hardest, most battle trained” soldiers, implying their involvement is significant to the Charlie Kirk case. They question why Egyptian military contractors would be in Provo, Utah, and why they did not return to Cairo, asking who they were planning to “take out next.” One speaker states that, according to a person close to someone who was aboard the flight, the aircraft did not simply stop in Utah for routine servicing. They claim the plane carried military subcontractors and that these individuals were dropped off in Provo, yet did not reboard for Cairo. They assert the flight departed Provo on September 10 and returned to Cairo on September 11, with allegedly missing people from the plane. The speaker emphasizes that the flight radar investigation shows a Cairo-to-Paris-to-France-to-Bannat, North Dakota route around that period, and notes that on September 10 the plane departed Provo at 07:14 AM local time. They insist the people aboard the plane were not the same individuals who later appeared on the flight’s return. The speaker contends this information was provided by a female source who knows an Egyptian military subcontractor personally. They acknowledge she did not claim the mission was related to Charlie Kirk, only that it was a top-secret operation, possibly a discreet joint military exercise, so hidden that people were urged to ignore it. The speaker describes the revelation as terrifying yet galvanizing, claiming it prompted bravery and a push to root out perceived evil in society. The discussion then shifts to Kash Patel, referencing a Daily Mail article about him shutting down a Charlie Kirk foreign intelligence probe in a feud with Trump’s counterterror chief. The speaker suggests Patel’s stance raises questions and asserts that Patel’s approach contrasts with what they would expect if there were genuine efforts to investigate Charlie Kirk’s murder, noting that Trump and Trump family members would presumably be involved in questioning the narrative. They criticize Patel for discouraging further inquiry, comparing him to Dr. Fauci in his alleged resistance to investigation. The speaker challenges Kash Patel to dispute the claims, asking him to confirm whether the plane truly came for routine servicing or for a discreet mission, and to disclose the truth about who was aboard and why they were in Provo, Utah.

A speaker asks if the recipient is aware that many Americans believe a recent shooting was a coordinated assassination attempt, not the act of a lone shooter. The speaker cites the shooter's age, proximity to the target with an AR-15, drone surveillance, and being spotted with a rangefinder as reasons for suspicion. The speaker, identifying himself as a former Navy SEAL sniper, notes the obvious sniper position from a water tower. He asks if the recipient is surprised that Americans suspect more to the story, given attempts to bankrupt and imprison the target, and depictions of him as Hitler. The speaker asks if the recipient's team entered and investigated the suspect's home prior to the shooting, to which the recipient says they participated in securing it and provided bomb assets. The speaker then asks if any agents reported anything "fishy" at the home, such as silverware or trash, or if it was extremely clean like a medical lab. The recipient states he was not given those details. The speaker concludes that this is what he is hearing and finds it "interesting."

The transcript centers on a critical clash over Candace Owens, TP USA, and allegations surrounding Charlie Kirk’s murder investigation, focusing on Fort Huachuca, alleged alibis, and competing narratives presented by Candace Owens and her critics. - The speaker positions himself as having known and supported Candace Owens for ten years, but challenges her latest claims, calling them “ridiculous gaslighting” and “nonsense,” and promises to lay out the facts and where they land. - The ongoing dispute involves “Egyptian planes,” a “latest so-called witness and whistleblower,” Mitch Snow, and a broader question about possible foreign or domestic involvement in Charlie Kirk’s murder, which is tied to a Fort Huachuca narrative. - Mitch Snow is alleged to have claimed that he saw Brian Harpole leaving a meeting at Fort Huachuca on September 9, and also claimed that Erica Kirk was at Fort Huachuca the night before, at Candlewood Inn and Suites. Owens had hosted Snow’s claims as part of her investigation, and the speaker had previously advised Candace to check alibis. - Candace Owens’ supporters and surrogates allegedly attacked the speaker after he questioned the alibis; he persisted in investigating, noting that the Fort Huachuca storyline had “completely blown up” with those alibis. - The narrative shifts to Erica Kirk, with Owens stating she had claimed she did not say the military was involved and did not implicate TP USA, despite compilations of past statements suggesting otherwise. The speaker contends Owens moved the goalposts multiple times and used the Fort Huachuca angle as a distraction from a prior Egyptian plane storyline. - The speaker asserts exclusive access to HD screenshots from Andrew Colvin, the TP USA spokesperson, which purportedly show that Owens’ depiction of Andrew Colvin’s involvement in “secret damage control” is a fraud. He claims to reveal that Colvin was coordinating with Paramount Tactical, not Owens directly, and that Colvin reached out to Owens’ team with alibi requests regarding Erica Kirk. - A key incident involves a screenshot and a time-stamped image Erica Kirk allegedly sent to Colvin showing her with her kids at 08:33, purportedly from Phoenix, which Owens used as part of her alibi apparatus. The speaker presents this as evidence that Colvin’s communications were not a cover-up but a regular PR exercise, and that Owens used the image to claim a broader conspiracy. - The speaker narrates a back-and-forth where Colvin allegedly provided an alibi for Erica Kirk; he shows that Kirk sent photos from a park and home, and Colvin responded three hours later, asking not to display the photo publicly but to acknowledge the proof. Owens denies the alibi and reframes it as desperate behavior by TP USA. - The discussion expands to broader personnel and planes-related details: an undersecretary of the army allegedly went to Fort Huachuca on the eighth; a defense department border inspection visit is cited as context for why Fort Huachuca is significant. The speaker emphasizes that the focus should be on the ninth and the alleged base alibis, not the eighth. - The speaker accuses Owens of simulating a “gaslighting operation” and notes that she has discredited alibis by shifting attention to new claims; he maintains that the “ninth” is the core question, not the earlier Fort Huachuca references. - The narrative includes a conflict with commentators such as Alex Jones, Charlie Kirk, and The Daily Wire, and alleges that Owens’ circle has manipulated public perception to undermine TP USA and Charlie Kirk. - The speaker concludes with a denunciation of Owens’ tactics, insisting that the public should focus on the Charlie Kirk murder case and its true facts, while alleging Owens uses a pattern of deception, moving from one narrative to another to distract from the nine’s alleged details. He calls for prayer for Candace Owens and urges supporters to consider the broader battle against perceived globalist manipulation; he also frames this as a spiritual or existential conflict in which truth is being contested. Note: Promotional or advertising content included toward the end of the original transcript has been omitted.

Mitch Snow, Fort Huachuca whistleblower, joined a Diligent Spaces edition hosted on X with his cohosts and guests, describing a two-day sequence centered on his attempt to obtain prosecutorial records and the extraordinary presence he observed at Fort Huachuca. Context and purpose for Fort Huachuca visit - Mitch explained that for years he has been trying to obtain records related to his military service, alleged targeting, and a custody fight involving his son. He has been collecting records across the country (Florida, East Coast, Washington DC) to reinforce a prosecutorial case and defend his reputation. - The last records he needed, he said, were at Fort Huachuca, where there had been prosecutions connected to a tunnel associated with a drug trafficking operation involving the Sinaloa cartel. Mitch described laying sensors (seismic and acoustic) as part of a Joint Task Force Six mission in May 1990, discovering an underground tunnel near Douglas, Arizona, with evidence implicating U.S. members. He testified in an army CID deposition related to that case, and described being flown back to Fort Drum after the deposition. - He stated that the tunnel raid led to the tunnel’s partial shutdown, but that it also caused the cartel to redesign distribution methods (submarines, various ports) and that evidence included photographs showing U.S. members with cartel figures. He asserted that he was targeted and harassed for reporting these findings over the years, including attempts to access his clearance information and threats linked to debt-tracking techniques used by cartels. First day at Fort Huachuca (evening of September 8) - Mitch traveled to Fort Huachuca for the records he needed, planning to stay at Candlewood Suites on base. He arrived around 5:00–6:00 PM Mountain Time, checked in with his girlfriend (Amy) via video call, and went to the lobby to speak with staff about access and the building layout. - In the lobby, he noticed a man who seemed like a professional, possibly a special forces contractor, wearing a distinctive watch; he did not approach or engage with the man. - A woman joined the man on a corner couch; Mitch described the woman as having a “sheen” of being well put together, blonde with a ponytail, and noted the eyes as particularly striking. He observed them leave in a green GMC SUV with the woman entering the passenger seat and the man driving, while he headed off to find a place to eat. - Mitch and Amy had dinner off base at a place described as a Mexican sushi restaurant (Takimaki-like name) and returned to the Candlewood Suites. He reported that the base was navigable but had a lot of speed traps; he did not report being stopped or harassed by MPs on arrival, and he described the gate staff as helpful. - A key moment from this first day was Mitch’s observation in the lobby: the woman sitting with the contractor appeared to be a high-profile figure; he was unsure of her identity but described her as distinct from the military guests, not in uniform. - Later, a panel of listeners asked about the exact appearance and actions of the people Mitch observed, including whether the two individuals were romantic or simply meeting, and whether the female wore rings. Mitch answered with limited detail, saying he did not want to discuss some specifics at that time. Observations at the base and the private meeting later that night - On the first night, Mitch described witnessing the duo in the Candlewood lobby, then later seeing the woman with the contractor in the same lobby as he returned. - He described a potential private discussion between the woman and the contractor, with the two leaving together in the vehicle; the following morning, Mitch provided a rough timeline (5:30–6:00 PM for the lobby sighting, with departure around 7:00–7:30 PM MT). - The Host participants, including Sam, Noxie, Destiny, and Lemair, pressed for precise details and identifiers (make of the vehicle, exact times, and the identity of the people), while Mitch occasionally deferred to not reveal certain details yet, citing comfort and safety concerns. - The host and guests discussed Mitch’s prior experiences, his memory, and the fact that a militarized environment often accompanies high-profile investigations. Several speakers affirmed Mitch’s credibility, noting that his level of detail resembled trained observation (salute reports: size, activity, location, unit, time, and equipment). Second day and the escalation - On the morning of September 9, Mitch woke early (around 05:30) to try to catch the sunrise and continued documenting with Amy via video calls; he described continuing to record selfies, videos, and notes to share with Amy. - Mitch retraced his attempts to locate the CID (Criminal Investigation Division) building to retrieve the records, describing a lack of clear visitor information and multiple detours across post as he sought the proper location. - He encountered a series of baselined rooms, offices, and signs; at one point, an officer suggested a different building and a different path to obtain the records. Mitch found a room with a podium and two soldiers at a desk; he identified it as a near-time, transitional office with a sign-in log. - Mitch reported the appearance of an entourage of high-ranking officers (captains, majors, lieutenant colonels) and a congressman as the group passed by him while he waited. Detainment, questioning, and consequences - Mitch described being escorted outside the building with his belongings, including his bag of documents and passports, while a security/escort team questioned him about his purpose there. He provided his documents and explained his purpose: to obtain the records and file a report. - The officers suggested bringing in a sergeant major, but he did not return; instead, a group of officers and soldiers surrounded him, including a captain, and a bomb-threat-like scenario unfolded: a vehicle investigation was initiated, and a bomb threat was insinuated as part of the unrelated escalation. - Mitch recounted being driven off post to CID for interrogation; he described the interrogation room with one-way glass and the presence of Captain Neff. He provided his detailed life history and his case history, including the NDA he believed had expired and his request to produce a report number for the encounter. - The post commander reportedly trespassed him from the installation for 24 hours, a decision made after the interrogation; Mitch insisted he would not return if trespassed further and stated he would proceed with his records via other channels. He described a variety of law enforcement vehicles at the scene (marked and unmarked police vehicles, federal agents, and a Park Ranger-type officer) and an elaborate, sometimes surreal, sequence of questioning. He documented his own records, including the OIG number (277 episode) and other documentation, and later traveled back to Tucson to regroup with Amy. - Mitch described that he believed the bomb-threat and the post lockdown were part of an overreaction to his attempt to obtain records, noting that such reactions had occurred in the past when his records were sought. He claimed not to have been charged with any crime, but was escorted off the base and told not to return for 24 hours. Aftermath and ongoing implications - Mitch and Amy returned to Tucson and then continued the process, continuing to seek congressional inquiry and prosecutorial review; they also contemplated FOIA requests. They discussed the reality that Candlewood Suites’ ownership was privately operated, complicating direct FOIA access to hotel footage. They mentioned a separate FOIA attempt by a lawyer (Slickdog) to obtain records about sightings of named individuals on Fort Huachuca, with a focus on gate logs and signage. - The pair connected their experiences to broader political events, including the Charlie Kirk incident, Candace Owens’ involvement, and the allegations around Erica Kirk, Brian Harpole, and Mark Amaday, noting the difficulty in obtaining corroborating evidence. Mitch spoke about Candace Owens’ role in amplifying the story, and his own preference to keep certain details private until appropriate. - Throughout the conversation, Mitch’s credibility was repeatedly supported by the other participants who emphasized his memory and attention to detail as evidence of his lived experience. Several speakers stressed the importance of cross-checking facts against the timeline and urged caution against disinformation and attempts to discredit credible testimony. Closing notes - The space concluded with expressions of support for Mitch and Amy, praise for their courage, and a plan to publish and share Mitch’s full story beyond the space. The host highlighted ongoing efforts to verify details, to preserve the record, and to bring attention to Mitch’s experience as part of a broader pursuit of truth. The event was described as a significant, if contested, documentation of a whistleblower’s eyewitness account at a sensitive military installation, with calls to action for audience members to share the narrative and support Mitch and Amy as they continue their efforts.

He says he was in Washington DC on January 6 and 'recorded video of two federal agents attacking the building.' He states he has 'given the FBI twenty nine minutes of high definition video' says, 'What what format do we got? MP four.' He adds, 'No copyright. I don't care about getting paid. I just want it out there.' He explains that, despite offering the footage, 'neither man's been arrested' and 'the FBI refuses to accept my offer to come in and give them a statement and all of the video that I took on the fifth, sixth, and seventh.' He says the FBI is 'desperate to keep their identities hidden.' He notes he has appeared on 'OAN and Newsmax' and 'played the video there.' He is in town this weekend. 'If you wanna have me on your show as a guest, I'm more than happy to go do so.'

Candace Owens opens by acknowledging tech challenges and explains she wants to recap the Fort Huachuca situation to counter a widespread misinformation campaign. She shares a timeline she drafted to illustrate how rapidly events unfolded after receiving Mitch’s story about a Fort Huachuca meeting. She describes her decision-making process from the night of the eighth through subsequent days as she sought to verify Mitch’s claims, including face-to-face vetting with government/military contacts and cross-checking with people who could corroborate or challenge Mitch’s account. Key narrative points Candace presents: - Mitch’s account centers on a September 8-9 sequence at Fort Huachuca involving top brass and a likely on-the-brink mission. Mitch says he saw Erica Kirk at the Candlewood Inn and Suites on September 8 and later describes a high-level meeting on September 9, with 12-13 people she described as top brass. He initially identified a person who resembled Cabot Phillips as being present and later discussed Brian Harpole’s possible presence at the base in that context. - Candace states she asked for basic vetting from a trusted government/military contact and later confirmed certain details, including that Brian Harpole’s alibi was not fully established for the morning of September 9. She notes that Erica provided flight information for Harpole, which Candace used to test Mitch’s timeline but found it did not definitively confirm an alibi for the morning. - With Mitch’s consent, Candace had Mitch on her show to present his metadata (IDs, passports) and his broader story; she maintains Mitch is a Green Beret and that “everything he said was substantially true,” though she concedes uncertainty about whether Harpole actually attended the meeting. - Candace recounts an escalation in scrutiny: Alex Jones and others amplified Mitch’s story; Barry Weiss’s “stop, stop” clip and social media attention followed. She says Ian Carroll warned of an impending lawsuit by Harpole and that someone sought to derail the discussion with manipulated allegations (e.g., stolen valor accusations). She explains she received a cease-and-desist suggestion but pressed on with vetting Mitch’s claims. - She notes that during the back-and-forth, Erica Kirk provided Harpole’s flights but not a complete, verifiable alibi for September 9 or a full record of activities. Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and Erica’s team offered an alibi (she was making dinner for Charlie Kirk); Candace sought metadata to confirm whether the text messages with Charlie Kirk occurred, but those data were still pending. - Candace emphasizes that she did not claim Erica was at Fort Huachuca on September 9; she states Mitch specifically claimed Harpole was present, and she focused on verifying that. She mentions Cabot Phillips’s possible presence was investigated and found Phillips was on vacation during the relevant dates, complicating Mitch’s claims about Cabot being the person he saw. - She discusses the broader context: the investigation has drawn in other players (Paramount Tactical, Valhalla, exes, and Mitch’s family) who offered or alleged alibis or information. She asserts she has sought to publish verifiable alibis when provided and to debunk or corroborate Mitch’s story with available evidence. She asserts she would publish Erica’s alibi if provided with receipts or a verifiable text chain showing Charlie Kirk’s communications. - Candace acknowledges the debate about whether the Fort Huachuca discussion constitutes an assassination planning meeting, clarifying that she has not claimed Erica Kirk attended that meeting, only that Mitch said someone resembling Cabot Phillips and Brian Harpole were involved in the broader Fort Huachuca-related events. She notes that Harrisons and others push back on the inference that the Fort Huachuca episode proves an assassination plot, and she respects a range of views on the matter. - She reports ongoing efforts: contacting Brian Harpole multiple times for a direct alibi for the morning of September 9; continuing to request Erica’s complete alibi and metadata; engaging Turning Point USA for clarifications; and aiming to verify or refute Mitch’s account through primary sources (base personnel, flight logs, official records). - Candace highlights the general sentiment from viewers and participants: there is a strong urge for transparency and credible evidence, and a belief that those connected to TPUSA and its affiliates should provide clear, simple alibis if they care about debunking or clarifying Mitch’s claims. Several participants stress that the investigation should stay focused on Charlie Kirk’s murder and whether Mitch’s Fort Huachuca timeline intersects with that event, rather than spiraling into personal allegations or MeToo-era rumors. Input from participants and their positions: - Harrison Faulkner: Questions the significance of the Fort Huachuca meeting, asking what the actual claim is and what proof would entail. He noted that even if Mitch’s story has proof, the core question remains: what is the conclusion or inference about Charlie Kirk’s murder? - Morgan Ariel: Affirms she remains on board with the investigation while expressing reservations about Mitch’s credibility. Emphasizes the need to assess Mitch’s claims against credible evidence and to avoid conflating personal accusations with the core investigative goals. - Myron: Supports Candace’s approach, endorsing investigative rigor, considering that Mitch may have been misrepresented by informants, and highlighting the importance of corroborating facts with base personnel and official records. - Ian Carroll: Recaps interactions with “Paramount Tactical” and others warning of potential pushback or attempts to manipulate Mitch’s narrative. Notes Ben Shapiro/Andrew Colbert’s involvement and expresses concern about behind-the-scenes pressure. He emphasizes seeking a straightforward alibi from Harpole and Erica. - Isabella: Asks about Morgan’s involvement and notes the potential for coordinated messaging around Mitch’s case. Seeks clarity on positions of exes and allies in the narrative. - Diligent Denizen: Urges rigorous curiosity and accountability, questioning how to prove negatives and seeking direct, verifiable evidence (e.g., alibi confirmations, flight logs, phone/metadatum trails). Argues for open, transparent sourcing and discourages character attacks without solid receipts. - Suleiman: Asks about the feasibility of proving negative alibis and how to confirm absence from a location when no direct evidence exists; underscores the need for a robust evidentiary trail. - Mel: Brings perspective from personal military life, pressing for straightforward evidence (alibis) and criticizing what she perceives as “half-hearted debunkings” or distractions (e.g., focus on exes) that divert from the Charlie Kirk case. - Ryan and other attendees: Echo appreciation for Candace’s investigative work, urge Turning Point to provide clear accountability, and emphasize public trust concerns regarding TPUSA’s handling of the Fort Huachuca matter and Charlie Kirk’s murder investigation. Candace closes by acknowledging the ongoing, crowdsourced nature of the investigation, the need for receipts and verifiable alibis, and her commitment to continuing to pursue the truth. She reiterates that if Erica or Cabot provide solid alibis with verifiable evidence, she will publish them; if Mitch’s account is proven inaccurate, she will acknowledge it and adjust accordingly. She teases additional explosive reporting on related topics, including Tyler Robinson, and states she will be back with more on this case.

Speaker 0 describes Skyler as having given about four different interviews online right after the Charlie Kirk assassination. She notes he is seen with glasses on top of his head, front row at the scene, and somehow sits on the Main Floor at the Charlie Kirk Memorial during the memorial service. She asks, “Who is this guy? How is this possible? And why are his interviews so odd?” She points out that on the day of the shooting Skyler was in the front row and near a bodyguard. Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 recount Skyler’s position: “Maybe 10 or 15 feet away when it happened. Close as he could.” They describe Skyler with sunglasses on his head, and a Charlie Kirk bodyguard in front of him, with Skyler off to the side in the corner when Charlie began taking questions. They note the bodyguard is directly in front of Charlie, Skyler to the side, matching Skyler’s own account of being “front row, Noel in front of him,” with a bodyguard to his left and one in front of him. They say Skyler was “front row and center.” Speaker 0 then says Skyler later appeared sitting on the Main Floor at the Charlie Kirk Memorial, with a floor pass for a press conference, literally “maybe 10 or so rows from the front of the stage.” They claim this is documented on Skyler’s Facebook page. They mention Skyler’s Facebook shows two, perhaps “two point, I think, k” followings, with from 2018 to 02/2025 only about seven posts and about 10 pictures, implying a sparse content profile for a “digital creator.” Speaker 3 describes Skyler’s earlier claim about getting into the stadium: “Just made it to the stadium. There is an unlimited amount of security, Secret service, military, police, empty. Steel barricades all around. … There’s been people waiting in line since 05:30 in the morning.” He says Skyler went past multiple security layers to obtain a media badge and a floor pass, and then ended up on the Main Floor “a few rows back to the Charlie Kirk Memorial.” The speakers question how he could gain access and yet appear to be late, then have a media pass and seating positions. Speaker 4 adds, “So, again, why go into detail acting as if you were late, you didn’t even know you were gonna get in, yet somehow you end up with a passing all these checkpoints to get a media pass around your deck, end up on the First, you know, Main Floor just a few rows back to the Charlie Kirk Memorial that day. It’s just like it’s a big act, a big show that this guy's putting on. It’s like he was handpicked to do all these interviews. He was handpicked to have front row that day because he was up, you know, farther up in the crowd before Charlie got there.” Speaker 4 closes with a segment featuring a clip of another person describing a mythic, imagery-laden interpretation: “An indecision night. I photoshopped in my mind. I photoshopped the blood away. I photoshopped Charlie, sat him back up, put his smile back on, and rewound the tape… I rewound the bullet going back up into the rifle. I stuck a flower inside the rifle.”

I'm embedded in the Pentagon, working in the joint staff, and I have experience as a former FBI agent. We discuss trafficking and I describe the perpetrator as a sociopathic narcissist. There are concerns about protecting the American people from potential threats he may pose. I'm currently in discussions with retired generals to explore strategies for addressing these issues.

"Candace is breaking on September 10 after Charlie's assassination." "An Egyptian Air Force plane flew out of Provo, Utah. Tail number, SUBTT." "Its first trip to America ever was made on July 20 to an army base in Nebraska." "the decision to murder Charlie Kirk in Utah was made around July 18." "A military meeting with foreign leaders took place on July 20 on US soil." "The plane flew into Provo direct from France on September 4 and stayed around or stayed until just after Charlie Kirk was assassinated, flying out of Williamston on that day." "The plane returned to Egypt the following day on September 11." "Things are not adding up here. This is a full scale military operation, and Candace is on point."

There is a highly fortified military camp where single young adult males are being brought. It is difficult to access and resembles a checkpoint. As a journalist, I have been threatened for trying to expose these operations, as they don't want the American people to know. Thankfully, some brave men and women in uniform have shared these locations with us off the record. They believe it is important for the truth to be known. I have been threatened two days in a row for sharing this information. Please share this message to spread awareness.

I hate drama. I hate influencer drama. I hate Internet drama. I hate the theatrics of it. And so I want to tell you something. The only reason that I'm going up against Crenshaw is I am sick and tired of watching government officials and people in high places try to silence and bully regular American citizens. I'm sick of saying it. Somebody's gotta stand up to this shit. It might as well be me. It might as well be me. On 12/09/2025, I received a legal demand letter from lawyers representing congressman Dan Crenshaw. They are threatening to sue me for defamation because of comments I made on my podcast about a message that he sent me. So this all transpired from a conversation that I had with Tulsi Gabbard. And I was concerned... Although I didn't mention his name in the interview... I wanted to know how a newer congressman can afford to hire a mainstream DJ, Steve Aoki, to spin at his fortieth birthday party. I didn't just make this up. Somebody sent me the invitation that he had sent out to everybody for his fortieth birthday. And so that's where I got this from. Anyways, here's the clip with Tulsi. Is there any direct money? I mean, know, you see all these people you see all these people show up in Congress, the Senate, the cabinet, whatever, and, you know, not wealthy. Yeah. Speaker 1: I don't have firsthand experience in this. I have often questioned the same thing. I know a big factor is the insider trading that goes on in Congress. And again, some people will say, well, like, hey, I didn't know anything about this. I'm just making investments for my family or my wife or my husband is making investments. I don't know anything about what's going on. Maybe they're being honest, maybe they're not. But the reality is you're in a position where you're making decisions, either in committee or on the House floor, that influence our markets, that influence the outcomes of certain industries, either causing some to tank or others to skyrocket. And the mere perception of insider trading shouldn't exist. This is legislation, again, I introduced in Congress years ago. No member of Congress should be allowed to do any trading of any stocks, neither should their spouse, neither should their senior staff. Period. These are the people who have access to proprietary private information that's not open to everybody in the public, or certainly before it becomes public. And the possibility of the abuse of power in trading on that information should not exist. It's interesting because as we're seeing there are some members of Congress who say that share my view on that, but who are continuing to trade stocks themselves. The Senate just passed, I think out of committee, first step legislation that would reflect similar to banning members and their spouses. We'll see where it goes. In the Senate we've heard a lot of talk coming from leaders from both parties, but no action has been taken. That to me is the most obvious way that people are going from being elected and having no money and you make, what, dollars $160 a year or whatever the salary is now to literally becoming multimillionaires. That is the most obvious way. There are kind of stringent requirements of financial reporting that every member has to do certainly at least once a year, more often if you are actively trading in stocks. But it I think it would be a little hard, not impossible, but a little hard if somebody's just coming and bringing you a sack of cash. Speaker 0: So after the conversation with Tulsi, that's when I got the text or the message on Instagram from congressman Crenshaw that I find threatening, telling me he spoke with his boys at six. Here's a screenshot. Hey, Sean. You have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem with me or have questions about how I'm getting rich. Some of my boys at six told me about your indirect swipe at me. Some of my beliefs are based on trendy narratives instead of facts. And just so you know, I mean, Dan does have a history of threatening people. Once again, here is Dan threatening to kill Tucker Carlson. And then, again, he reaffirms that he's not joking. Speaker 2: Have you ever met Tucker? Speaker 0: We've talked a lot. He's the worst person. Okay. So I get the message. I take it is extremely threatening. It is a tier one unit, the best, most effective tier one unit in the world, deadliest unit. But I don't do anything. I move on. And then a little over a year later, I'm interviewing, oh, a member from SEAL Team six. Maybe he's one of Dan's boys at six. So he brought up the fact that he had asked a congressman with an eye patch, didn't wanna mention his name, to help him with his book debacle. He received no aid. I filled in the blank. I said, oh, you must be talking about congressman Crenshaw. Let me share my experience with you, my interactions with congressman Crenshaw. So I shared him. I told him about the Instagram message, and I told him that I found that threatening. And then I asked Matt if he was one of Dan's boys at six, Maybe he was here to come beat me up. Matt assured me he wasn't. Here's the clip. Speaker 2: I'll give you another example. In the height of my my issues, I contacted a former SEAL. I won't name names, but he has an eye patch, And he's a congressman out of a state You Speaker 0: mean Dan Crenshaw? Speaker 2: I'm not naming names. Speaker 0: Another one of my Speaker 2: favorite Sir, here's my situation. You know, Dan? Speaker 0: Dan actually sent me a message. I should fucking read this to you. But, basically, he tells me I brought something up about him, and I never even met I gave him the courtesy of not even mentioning his fucking name. It was about his birthday party where he hired Steve Aoki to to DJ his birthday. I mean, that can't be fucking cheap. Right? Especially on a congressman's salary. And I brought that up. And Dan sends me a message that says his boys over at six are really upset with me that I brought that up, and they're gonna they might come beat me up. Speaker 2: Boys at six. Speaker 0: His boys over at six. Speaker 2: Well, to infer he's got I don't know why congressman would be Speaker 0: threatening me with seal team six, but I'm still fucking waiting. This is actually a couple years This Speaker 2: is threatened quite a Speaker 0: have not had my ass kicked by a couple of guys over at six. But Dan Crunchy he fits with all these fucking people you're talking about. Speaker 2: So I called him. Right? He's a sitting congressman. He's a former officer. And drum roll, please, he was getting ready to release his book. So I call him up. I get a conversation with him. I said, sir, here's my situation. I hired an attorney. The attorney gave me bad advice. Book was published. I've given up attorney client privilege, cooperated everything I can to to fix this. They've still come after me. We can get into all the the other stuff that I'm dealing with. I said, sir, can you help me out with this? He's like, well, you know, I'm I'm about ready to publish my book, and I'm I'm not getting it reviewed. I'm like, well, sir, same same letter of the law that they came after me for failure to seek prepublication review. I didn't get prepublication review because my lawyer told me I didn't have to, and he could do it. Like, in your case, you know you have to get reviewed. I'm here telling you, confirming you have to get reviewed or the government's gonna come after you. He's like, yeah. No. But I'm not gonna write anything classified in my book. I'm like, there's nothing classified in my book. They they said there was. They went through it. They said, nope. There's nothing classified in it. You just failed to seek review. I'm like, so if I only thing I failed to do was seek review, you're willingly going around that obligation, and you don't give a shit. He's like, yeah. But I'm not gonna write about anything classified in my book. That was his answer. Never talked to him again. So he published his book. No review. Nothing's happened. He's kept his money. He's a sitting congressman. I got a payment plan. So so to say I've been alone So Speaker 0: I guess I guess you're not one of Dan's boys over at six. Speaker 2: That's kinda Definitely not Dave Boys at six. That's a pretty ridiculous statement if I've ever heard one.

The speaker discusses potential connections between Andrew Cobalt and Egypt, prompted by a subscriber’s tip related to Candace. The subscriber suggests there may be links worth Candace’s attention and promises screenshots and links below in the comments for others to investigate. The speaker references an article headlined “Egypt's president Sisi meets with US evangelical leaders for the first time in Cairo,” and reads a few key points from it, noting the quote is by Baptist pastor Turk Perkins. The article states that Turk Perkins was joined by evangelical activists and authors described as religious freedom activists and informal Trump adviser Johnny Moore, evangelical Joel Rosenberg, Egyptian-born Christian pastor and author Michael Youssef, and former Republican presidential candidate and former US congressman Michael Betzman. The speaker highlights Johnny Moore as the Trump adviser mentioned in the article and then shifts to the Kairos company. Kairos is described as being founded by Johnny Moore around 2015 as a boutique strategic communication PR firm. The discussion then moves to LinkedIn information about Andrew Kovolt (spelled Kovolt in the transcript), who is said to have been the vice president of communications for “the Cairo company” from August 2015, which would be near the company’s inception, until January 2019 when he allegedly moved to Turning Point. The speaker explicitly states he is not accusing Andrew Colvold (spelled Kovolt) of anything and that he is simply presenting information for others to consider. He adds that he does not know if the information is true or fact-checked, and emphasizes a general caveat: “Everybody's always innocent until proven guilty. Nothing here is a fact. This is all just allegedly.” The caller invites viewers to research further and share any connections they uncover between the Egyptian meeting, the Egyptian companies, and a scenario described as “an Egyptian plane flying with military contractors and kinda trailing Charlie Kirk all over the country and just happened to be in the same state at the same time and the same day that Charlie Kirk was assassinated.” The speaker requests comments with findings and suggests reaching out if anything bigger is discovered.

Moneypenny, who identifies as British, explains she does not profess to understand the American legal system and notes the British system is harsh. She says that if a high-ranking, medal-awarded UK military figure who used to be a jet pilot and who worked in UK military intelligence came forward with evidence of a misdemeanor involving the death of many people, that matter would be investigated. She says she is stuck and wants to appeal to Pam Bondi and possibly Cash Patel. She describes a US military member who used to be a pilot, who worked in sensitive intelligence, who had visited the Diego Garcia Military Base, and who had a level of clearance allowing him to explore the base, and who was aware of the Black Navy and operations requiring senior sign-in. To her, that individual sounds like someone who would be taken seriously. She questions why information from someone of that caliber who has spoken out, who is recorded speaking out, who has given corroborating evidence and named others, and who can tell where a seven seventy-seven airliner with two hundred thirty-nine souls on board went and how the operation took place, down to the mechanics and the people involved, is not being taken seriously or investigated. She frames this as murder. She notes there are two hundred thirty-nine people on board and thousands of friends, family, and others who have dedicated time to examining the case over the past eleven years, including herself. She mentions videos that potentially reveal some information, but Ashton Forbes, who holds those videos, has been given letters from the American military or American department stating that, in matters of national security, they cannot confirm any of the detail. She reiterates that this decorated military veteran, a former jet pilot who flew into Diego Garcia, who served in Iraq, and who has performed impressive military work for the United States, has spoken out and is on record. She says she will send the video and asks why nothing is being done and why nobody is investigating. She says she does not understand how the United States can overlook this, and she expresses anger on behalf of all those people aboard and their friends and families, many of whom are Chinese and Malaysian. She demands that something be done about this. She adds that she is a nobody, and that she will put this on social media and wait for a bloody good explanation as to why nobody is taking this seriously, because she considers it inhumane. She hopes the Trump administration, among others, would not allow something inhumane to occur, and she ends by expressing that she hopes others agree.

Jeremy, a special forces member, was providing security at the Capitol. When he was arrested, the same officers who had recruited him were involved. They never asked if the items in question were his. There’s a pattern of hiding information, and judges have allowed this to continue. The situation could lead to indefinite detention. Jeremy expresses his commitment to remain as long as the American people support him. I'm Laura Logan, and this is the rest of the story. Join us.

"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 references an episode where The Baron Coleman expands on Camp Huachuca, suggesting that the beep on the base could have been involved. The speaker states they did research in response to that suggestion and found a compelling video from The Baron Coleman. They note that there is actually video of Vance on the base, which indicates it could not have been Vance on the base. The speaker acknowledges they are getting ahead of themselves and plans to discuss more about this tomorrow. They describe The Baron Coleman’s video as very compelling.

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

I'm Moneypenny and I'm British. I don't profess to understand the American legal system, though I know the British system fairly well. It is fairly harsh at the moment. But I know that if a high ranking, somebody who's been awarded a medal in the British military, who used to be a jet pilot, who used to work in the intel sector of the UK military, came to us and said he was aware of a misdemeanor, a crime involving the death of many people, and he had various evidence and other people that would corroborate that, that something could be done about it, it would be investigated. So this is where I'm stuck, and I want to appeal. Pam Bondi and maybe Cash Patel. If a member of the US military who used to be a pilot, who worked in sensitive intel, who had visited the Diego Garcia Military Base, who had a level of clearance such that he was free to explore that base, who was aware of the Black Navy and the operations that would require being signed in or read in at a very senior level. That individual to me sounds as though he would be somebody that would be taken seriously. So this is where I have a problem. This is where I don't understand. I do not understand how somebody of that caliber who has spoken out, who is recorded speaking out, giving evidence corroborating, giving names of other people. Who is able to tell us where a seven seventy seven airliner with two thirty nine souls on board went and who took it and how the whole operation took place down to the mechanics of it, the individuals that took part in it. Why isn't that information being taken seriously? Why isn't that information being investigated? We are talking about murder. I'm sorry to use that word. There are two thirty nine people, souls involved and probably thousands of friends, family and many, many interested parties over the past eleven years. Many people who have dedicated a lot of time to looking at this, myself included. There are videos that potentially are giving away some of the information about what happened. But the person who has those videos, a person called Ashton Forbes, has been given letters from the American military, American department saying in a matter of national security, they cannot confirm any of the detail. So now we have a decorated military veteran, a former jet pilot who flew into Diego Garcia, who was in Iraq, who has done a lot of very impressive military work on behalf of The United States, has spoken out, is on record. I will send you the video. Why? Why is nothing being done? Why is nobody investigating? I do not understand how The United States can overlook this because, frankly, I'm pretty angry. On behalf of all those people on board, predominantly Chinese and Malaysian people and all their friends and families, I demand that something is done about this. And I'm a nobody, and you don't have to listen to me. But I'm gonna put this on social media, and I'm gonna sit here and wait until somebody responds and gives a bloody good explanation as to why nobody is taking this seriously. Because frankly, it's inhumane, and I don't think the Trump administration, amongst anybody else, would allow something inhumane to take place. I hope you agree.

- Erica Kirkburg has allegedly been seen at Fort Huachuca the day before her husband died. - Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss this sighting, noting a photo of Erica Kirk with a ponytail from her past and claiming she matched the person seen at Fort Huachuca in the lobby the night before, who was with a man present at that meeting. - Mitch, described as a veteran who uncovered US involvement in cartels and was silenced, is claimed to have seen Erica. He is also said to have identified the same person in the lobby as Erica. - Speaker 2 notes another picture of Erica Kirk with a ponytail from the past, asserting the person in that photo matches who was seen at Fort Huachuca, and that the man with Erica was present at the meeting. - Stu Peters is brought in, with Speaker 1 summarizing that, in plain English, Erica is “sketchy.” Stu Peters claims he is 99% sure he saw Erica Kirk at Fort Huachuca with Brian Harpole, congressman Mark Amity, and a group of military officers; Mitch similarly says he is 99% certain of what he saw. - A directive is issued to “Shut it down, Stu,” and a private meeting is referenced where Candace is told to walk back statements and “simmer down,” with a threat that she could end up like Jackie. - The discussion considers the possibility that Erica was in a motel on the eighth and suggests she might have been there for a different reason, noting her mother moved to Arizona because she got involved with the military, which could be unrelated to the meeting on the ninth. - Speaker 5 defends Erica indirectly by saying that just because Erica’s parents have ties to Raytheon and Israel, and her mom moved to Arizona and are seen at Huachuca two days prior to a shooting, does not mean “we” did it. Candace is pressed not to inquire further. - The dialogue shifts to a broader comment about Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk; Speaker 1 questions why the widow of Charlie Kirk would inspire a public nervous breakdown by Ben, and speculates about Israel’s involvement with 9/11. - The conversation includes explicit antisemitic and inflammatory remarks from Speaker 5, including “You stupid little Goyim. How dare you insult my chosenness?” and references to “dark people.” - A Son of the record remark about the slave trade is made, with a claim that “the trading day” landed on a Jewish holiday, affecting operation. - The exchange ends with a directive to Candace to “match” and a retort about choosing a private meeting to stop questions, followed by a return to derisive comments about Jewish holidays.

Mitch Snow, a Fort Huachuca whistleblower, joined a Diligent Spaces edition on X after being invited by the host and via a “request” process. The hosts set ground rules: the focus would be Mitch’s experiences surrounding Fort Huachuca, not a forum for relitigating prior smears, and they invited Mitch to share only what he was comfortable with. The conversation would later open to other speakers for questions. Mitch’s cohost and others emphasized the breadth of questions from the audience and signaled that some topics might be deferred if he wasn’t ready. Mitch explained that his trip to Fort Huachuca was driven by his ongoing effort to obtain records related to his past military service, the events surrounding JTF Six, and the broader history of possible government involvement with drug-trafficking networks. He described a long-standing pattern of being targeted and silenced, with the aim of gathering records to support a custody dispute with his ex-wife and to protect his relationship with his son. He emphasized that the motive for going to Fort Huachuca included reinforcing prosecutorial records that would help his case and corroborating details about the “prosecutorial records” and the tunnel-related evidence that he had previously encountered. Key background Mitch shared included his early involvement with JTF Six in May 1990, where he served as a ground radar and REMBAS sensor operator. He described laying seismic and acoustic sensors to detect movement and to investigate the trafficking routes of cocaine entering through Douglas, Arizona, near the border between Fort Huachuca and Fort Bliss. He recounted that they discovered an underground tunnel used in trafficking, which involved money, guns, and a substantial quantity of cocaine. He characterized the tunnel as an elaborate structure, reportedly linked to a $11,400,000 project, nicknamed a “James Bond Tunnel,” with photos indicating Mexican-side involvement by U.S. members. He testified that a raid followed, the tunnel was shut down, and the cartel reportedly redesigned its distribution channels afterward, shifting smuggling to ports and submarines along the East Coast and other entry points. Mitch described his involvement in interrogations and depositions: he testified in an inquiry with Army CID and a federal prosecutor from Tucson, was later transported home on a plane from Fort Drum, and received a deposition. He explained that the tunnel raid produced a body of evidence beyond cocaine, including firearms and money, and that there were ongoing efforts to obtain prosecutorial records, some of which he intended to reinforce with firsthand documentation. In recounting his motive for returning to Fort Huachuca in September (the date spoken about is September 8/9, 2025 in the discussion), Mitch explained that his purpose was to reinforce archival records, to seek information about prosecutions connected to the tunnel case, and to obtain evidence for his custody case. He noted that this trip was part of a broader record-collection mission across multiple bases (Fort Lewis, Fort Bragg, Fort Huachuca, Fort Houston), often meeting resistance from the government in providing access to files. A central focus of the interview was Mitch’s observations at Fort Huachuca, particularly on his first day at the Candlewood Suites on base (the hotel that serves both base personnel and civilian guests under a private contract). Mitch stated that the Candlewood on base is the location where the civilian side of the base’s lodging is connected with base access, including the gate process that allows civilians who can prove acceptable reasons to enter. He emphasized that he was not barred from entry as a civilian; he could enter with proper identification and a vehicle. He noted that the Candlewood is the same building Mitch had pictorially identified in the past as barracks converted to a hotel, and he described the lobby scene, with a front desk and two enlisted personnel, and a private conversation occurring between a man he perceived as a potential ex-Special Forces contractor and a woman he described as sophisticated and “affluent-looking” with a “sheen.” Mitch intentionally did not name the individuals and described the woman as having a blonde ponytail and striking eyes. Mitch recalled that the couple left in a green GMC or similar vehicle after a private conversation in the hotel lobby. He observed the exchange between the woman and the man with the green watch, noting that the woman walked around the front of the vehicle to get into the passenger seat, with the man driving. He described noticing the couple in the lobby, speculating that the man could be a professional contractor or ex-Special Forces, and that the woman and man later drove away together. In the course of the first day, Mitch moved around the base, visiting the Candlewood, and trying to locate the CID (Criminal Investigation Division) building to request his records. He described getting various directions that sometimes proved incorrect, and he recounted speaking with a gate guard at the entrance to help him locate the right building. He described the interior of the building where he sought to speak to staff about records from the 1990s, including a reception area, a podium, and a pair of personnel at the front desk. He walked through a sequence of rooms, including a sign-in log, and noted a “gray-haired” captain who came to speak with him about his records. In the course of that initial visit, Mitch observed that a VIP party, including a congressman with a congressional pin and two other men with a dual-flag pin, exited the building. He provided a detailed description of the scene, including where the VIPs walked, how close he stood, and the expressions and posture of the men. Mitch identified one of the men exiting as Brian Harpole (whom he later connected to a televised event or interview), and he described the other two as military officers. He described the VIP’s entourage passing him in a doorway, within arm’s reach, with the congressman and others moving through a hallway. He noted the patches on their uniforms, including Ten Mountain Division insignia and airborne patches. After the VIP group left, a black GMC vehicle arrived and a man who had been at the Candlewood the night before joined the group, and they walked to the vehicle. Mitch described the presence of a park ranger, a detective, two captains, and a lieutenant colonel. He testified that a private conversation occurred near the front desk, and a group of officers and federal agents assembled outside as he waited near the front doors. Mitch stated that the group’s arrival and confrontation culminated in him being escorted outside and escorted off the base. He described a bomb-threat-like incident: the officers announced a need to check his vehicle for explosives, evacuated the building, and placed him in a car with Captain Neff to drive him to CID. Mitch said he was escorted to an interrogation room at CID, where he was questioned for several hours with various officers presenting records from county, VA, and other agencies. He described being asked if he could be helped, whether he posed harm to himself or others, and whether he could receive psychiatric counseling; a civilian counselor was brought in to interview him, and he noted the counselor appeared inexperienced and asked questions about medications, diagnoses, and emotions. Mitch reported that the post commander ordered him trespassed off the post for 24 hours, after which he could return for further discussion. He stated that he left the base and returned to Tucson, where his girlfriend Amy (noting that she had supported him) remained a linchpin in his efforts, coordinating his travel and documentation. He described returning to Tucson the next day, then flying to Salt Lake City before returning home. During the time away, his phone communications with Amy intensified; she was understandably distressed by the events, and she encouraged him to pursue answers. Mitch explained that, upon returning to civilian life, he and Amy confronted a press environment rife with allegations and the notion of “stolen valor.” He described receiving calls and emails from Candace Owens, who helped to validate his story and push for its public discussion. He recounted that Candace Owens scheduled interviews and invited him to discuss the case, revealing that his narrative had drawn significant attention from some quarters and intense attacks from others. He credited Candace Owens with validating the authenticity of his experiences, and he expressed appreciation for her willingness to put his story into a broader public arena, even as he cautioned that some individuals and organizations sought to discredit him. Mitch stressed that his overarching aim has been to obtain the records that would corroborate his narrative: the tunnel discovery, the JTF Six mission, the weaponry and materials seized, the agents involved, and the broader implications of the trafficking network. He asserted that the goal was to assemble concrete evidence, to hold those responsible to account, and to secure access to his records for a custody case and future court proceedings. The discussion included a strong emphasis on the persistence of harassment over decades, across administrations of different political parties (Clinton, Bush, Trump), and the complicating factor of private security contractors and other non-military personnel who have been present at bases. Mitch described a pattern of targeted harassment and a complex set of “shills” in public discourse who attempted to discredit him by attacking his past credentials, as well as the idea that the same sources or sponsorship accounts funded a coordinated effort to undermine him. Toward the end, Mitch acknowledged the support from his partner Amy, praising her resilience and courage. The host and panelists praised Amy for standing by Mitch through intense scrutiny and pressure. The group expressed gratitude for Mitch’s candor and the time he spent answering questions, emphasizing that the broader audience should carefully consider the authenticity of his experiences and the seriousness of his claims. They discussed potential next steps, including FOIA requests for the presence of named individuals at the base during the September dates, and the possibility of pursuing further documentation from the Candlewood hotel and other on-base records. As the space concluded, Mitch thanked the hosts and the audience, noting that he would remain available for future discussion and to provide further details if needed. The group closed with appreciation for the audience’s support and a commitment to continuing the dialogue, with Mitch’s story becoming a touchpoint for broader questions about records, transparency, and accountability in relation to Fort Huachuca, JTF Six history, and the alleged connections to trafficking networks and political elites. The hosts announced plans to publish a podcast version of the interview and to share the content more broadly, encouraging listeners to spread the message and stay engaged with the ongoing investigation. They ended with a note of gratitude to Amy and Mitch, and to the audience for participating in a conversation that sought to illuminate hard questions with as much factual detail as possible, while acknowledging that some details remained to be disclosed or explored in future discussions.

- I recognized an individual and 'have taken down the cameras minute four after Charlie was shot? The back camera of all the ones when you take the front camera.' - 'I've never seen that. He's never been behind me at an event. He's never been lingering around me at an event.' - I asked about 'his presence behind Charlie' and 'the mysterious phone call ... minute three after Charlie was assassinated.' - He told me explicitly that 'they were trying something new that day. Like, it was something new. Charlie's super ambitious. And on the AV thing, they were trying something new, and they wanted to be able to feed it back instantly to Arizona.' - 'None of it makes sense to me because these events are typically livestreamed. But again, something new. Okay?'

- Mitch testified that he is 99% sure he saw Erica Kirk at Fort Huachuca with Brian Harpole, congressman Mark Amity, and a group of military officers, and he is taking a great personal risk in going public. - Fort Huachuca is described as the home to the only unmanned aircraft training center in the United States. The discussion connects Fort Huachuca to drone activity and to manned aircraft capable of releasing and retrieving drones, including the Bombardier Global 65,000 military jet with tail number N1098 Lima, which allegedly performed nine-eleven level maneuvers on the day Charlie Kirk was killed. - It is claimed that Fort Huachuca is also the military’s only site in the country that tests EMP blasts, electromagnetic pulse blasts that can disable telecommunications, and that these EMP blasts can be carried out by drones, such as the drone reported around UVU at the time Charlie Kirk was killed, where people on the ground said their cell phone service was disrupted. - The speaker suggests that, given Mitch’s information and previous discussions, the Fort Huachuca angle may be the explanation for what happened, implying that an EMP carried out by a drone from Fort Huachuca could be involved. - Lori Fransvi V is described as the founder of E3 Tech, a defense contractor that claims to produce EMP-proof technology for the military and that earns millions of dollars in government contracts. E3 Tech is said to be closely linked to Israel under the guise of allied defense contracting and cooperation. - It is stated that E3 Tech’s EMP-proof technology would have to pass through Fort Huachuca, making Fort Huachuca the lifeblood of E3 Tech’s work. - The narrative asserts a backstory about Erica Kirk’s mother, Lori Fransky, portraying her as a hardworking single mom who fought and clawed to get by, moving to Arizona because of her work. The speaker says, given what is now known, that Lori Fransky didn’t just have to be in Arizona for work, but had to be at Fort Huachuca, and that Erica also had to be there because of her mother’s defense contract. - It is claimed that Lori Fransby/Fransky’s parents are connected to Fort Huachuca as well: Kent Fransby with ties to Raytheon, Israel, LTD, and the Iron Dome, and involved in defense contracts with the same military base where Mitch says he saw Erica Kirk before Charlie Kirk’s assassination. - The overall assertion is that Fort Huachuca is central to Erica Kirk, to Ken Fransby, to Lori Fransby, and to Erica Kirk’s connection to Charlie Kirk’s assassination.