TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker says they have a confirmed source about Charlie Kirk wearing a bulletproof vest and notes his friend's dad is a surgeon. "Carly Carly Trik arrived. He was hit in the chest, which is what we saw. It caved in part of his chest." "The bullet ricocheted up and went into the neck." "There was no side shooter, guys." "The main shooter we're looking at came from the front, and I don't think it was that Tyler dude." "I'm not buying the stuff that he was a lone shooter on the roof." He states: "Look at all this stuff that the FBI has told us." He adds: "I personally think that there is somebody much farther back than that. I think that dude on the roof is a patsy." He concludes: "Please do not send me any more videos of any other angles of this being a side shooter."

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

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

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

The speaker asserts that Charlie Kirk was shot from the front and that the bullet did not exit his body, with at least a fragment of the bullet recovered from his neck. This is presented as the part of the story that is true and is claimed to dispel various theories. The speaker states they have fact-checked this information from multiple sources over more than a week of review. The fragment is described as being recovered “right around here,” approximately in line with Charlie Kirk’s shoulder blade, near the center of the back, in a location “almost in line with your shoulder blade.” The speaker argues this location provides a bullet trajectory: the bullet entered in the described area, was stopped there, and a fragment was pulled from the neck region along the spine’s line. A key point emphasized is that a .30-06 round was not recovered intact. The speaker asserts that there was no recovered bullet from a .30-06, stating that “They did not recover a bullet from a 30 odd six. They didn’t recover a bullet from a 30 odd six. Just didn't happen.” They contrast this with the presence of .30-06 bullets in some context, implying that while .30-06 rounds were found, no complete bullet was recovered. The speaker notes that death certificates in suicide cases typically reflect the gun and the bullet when both are known, and claims that there is not a bullet reflected on Charlie Kirk’s death certificate because a .30-06 bullet was not recovered. The speaker asserts that the information has been cross-checked with multiple sources and that it undermines other theories, reinforcing that common sense supports their account. The closing remark addresses hunters and military personnel, acknowledging agreement with their perspective: “Hunters and military men rejoice. It turns out that common sense still rules the roost. Okay? You guys were right.”

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.”

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.”

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

The speaker explains that in the three months since Charlie Kirk’s murder, they have largely refrained from commenting publicly on the investigation. They say this is not due to lack of care or affection for Charlie, whom they knew well since his teenage years, but because they feel they don’t know more than others and want to avoid missteps given their personal connections to those involved. They name Candace Owens, Blake Neff, and Erica Kirk as people they know well and respect, and emphasize a desire to honor Charlie’s memory by seeking justice without criticizing others’ motives when people are sincerely pursuing the truth. They recount a three-hour conversation with Theo Vaughan during which the topic of Charlie Kirk’s case arose. They state they told Vaughan they do not trust the FBI, clarifying that this statement was not an accusation that the FBI is involved in Charlie’s assassination, and they did not intend to imply such. They acknowledge they like Dan Bongino and Cash Patel and do not believe they would intentionally cover up a murder, but they argue that the FBI, being at the top of the organization, is part of a large bureaucracy where some parts act independently from leadership. Therefore, liking individuals within the organization does not equate to trusting the FBI as a whole. The speaker asserts that, as a lesson of the 2024 election, many of the nation’s largest systems and institutions have rot and require reform. They contend that January 6 was a setup and that the FBI was key to that setup, stating it remains unclear whether everyone involved has been fired or punished. They insist that no American is under moral obligation to believe everything the government tells them, especially institutions with a documented history of wrongdoing, such as the FBI’s alleged crimes, manufacturing crimes, and distorting justice. They emphasize that the job of the FBI is to find out what happened, tell the public how they arrived at conclusions, and convince the public of the outcomes, rather than hiding behind national security or confidential sources. The speaker concludes by committing to avoid talking about topics they do not understand, to state things only as they know them, and to remain skeptical. They stress a duty to skepticism and to seek truth and justice without being swayed by tone or certainty from government officials. They reiterate love for Charlie and a wish for justice, while urging others to maintain scrutiny toward the investigation.

The speakers recount the moments surrounding Charlie Kirk being shot and highlight the behavior of Mikey McCoy, Charlie Kelley’s chief of staff. The account begins with a father describing his son’s roles: Justin is the chief financial officer, and Mikey is the chief of staff. He recalls the instant Charlie was shot: “Charlie’s been shot in the neck. Please call every pastor and pray.” He notes that Charlie was directing at the time, with blood all over him. Speaker 1 focuses on Mikey’s actions during the incident. He notes that Mikey is still there, phone in hand, texting, talking, then putting the phone away. He points to the person Charlie is arguing with, Hunter Kozak, and emphasizes what the video shows about Mikey: he seems to see Charlie get hit and “simply walks away.” Mikey later reappears on the other side of the tent, not running but walking. The account questions whether Mikey might be on the phone, though it isn’t certain. Security guards are described as doing their part, while Mikey is shown “walking, like getting far away from everything.” The narrative suggests Mikey turned his back on the incident after it happened. Speaker 2 names Mikey McCoy, Charlie Kirk’s chief of staff and friend, describing what he did or did not do during the morning. The speaker asserts that Mikey “spent the whole morning dutifully and loyally by Charlie’s side filming everything,” but then “abandoned Charlie in the very instant Charlie was killed.” The key questions posed are whether Charlie was actually dead, whether he needed help, and whether Mikey rushed to aid him or instead got his camera out. The speaker concludes that, according to the account, “Mikey McCoy didn't care about Charlie Kirk at all and just left him behind.” In summary, the described sequence presents Mikey McCoy as being present with Charlie prior to the shooting, then engaging in texting and moving away, appearing on the far side of the tent, and ultimately turning his back on Charlie after the incident, with the claim that he abandoned him as Charlie passed. The recounting is reinforced by a second speaker who reiterates that Mikey did not assist Charlie and appeared to prioritize other actions over Charlie’s welfare.

Speaker asserts 'Candace ain't lying, guys. I know it for a fact.' They warn against attacking anyone who asks questions and labeling them conspiracy theorists, noting those questions are often raised by 'typically conspiracy theorists.' They claim 'these narratives they're spinning out... don't make any sense' and that 'None of us really know. Like, if you're actually believing what these people are telling us, you're cooked.' They describe a contradiction: 'look at the wall that is purple... it's purple' and 'Look closer. It's yellow.' They ask, 'What are you talking about?' and argue the way to honor Charlie is by figuring out 'who the hell killed him and why and how.' They state 'There is absolutely something going on in that organization' before and after the assassination and that 'they do not want us to know.' To honor Charlie, 'we fight to figure out what the hell it is they don't want us to know.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Now I can tell you the part that he is telling the truth about is that Charlie's neck indeed did stop the bullet without question." "Charlie Kirk was shot from the front and the bullet did not exit." "And at least a fragment of the bullet was recovered from his neck." "They did not recover a bullet from a 30 odd six." "They found a 30 odd six bullets." "Charlie's death certificate certainly would have reflected that." "There is not one reflected onto Charlie Kirk's death certificate because they did not recover a bullet from a 30 odd six." "Andrew has claimed that he had a conversation with the surgeon who offered up the idea that it really was just your modern Christian miracle." "What are we to make of that?"

The speaker explains that in the three months since Charlie Kirk was murdered, they have avoided public commentary on the murder investigation out of care for Charlie and respect for the people involved, many of whom they know personally and admire. They emphasize that their goal is truth and justice, and they would not criticize anyone sincerely trying to uncover what happened, recognizing that good motives can lead to wrong conclusions. They recount a three-hour conversation with Theo Vaughan that touched on distrust of the FBI. They clarify this did not mean they accused anyone of involvement in Charlie Kirk’s murder, but it gave them the chance to state that they do not trust the FBI. They distinguish personal trust in individuals (e.g., Dan Bongino, whom they like, and Cash Patel) from trust in the FBI as an institution, noting that parts of the FBI can act independently within a large bureaucracy, separate from leadership. The speaker argues that distrust is not about a general attack on political leadership but about systemic issues. They reference the 2024 election as evidence that major institutions may be corrupt or rot, and they point to January 6 as, in their view, a setup in which the FBI played a key role. They question whether everyone involved in that setup has faced consequences. They insist that no American is morally obligated to believe everything the government says, especially given a history of the FBI's alleged crimes, illicit participation in politics, manufacturing crimes, or distorting justice—claims they assert as part of the FBI’s track record, which, in their view, is counter to its mission to obtain justice through facts and then explain its conclusions. They argue that it is not enough to have government officials declare the truth; the public has the right or obligation to demand proof. A central concern is that the investigation into Charlie Kirk’s murder could be overshadowed by debates about what happened, allowing the FBI to go unchallenged or unaccountable. The speaker asserts that the FBI should tell, show, and convince the public about what happened, rather than hiding behind national security or confidential sources. Ultimately, they commit to avoiding statements they don’t understand, to staying out of the case, but to maintaining love for Charlie and a desire for justice, while urging others to remain skeptical. They conclude that skepticism is a duty and not something to be ashamed of.

"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."

- 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?'

From the outset, one of the speakers says there was a sense that the official narrative about the day didn’t add up, expressing that many Americans feel they were being lied to. The major problem they identify with the assassination narrative includes inconsistencies and unanswered questions rather than acceptance of the official story. Speaker 1 recalls being told Charlie Kirk was shot and initially in critical condition, but notes that the video shows an exit wound and movement of Kirk’s shirt that suggests an impact nearby. With extensive experience around gunshot wounds, they say what they saw didn’t make sense. They reference the FBI’s announcement of a shooter and describe a separate incident involving a person on the roof who allegedly disassembled and reassembled a firearm, aligned a scope, fired a cold bore shot, moved to the roof, and then wrapped the rifle up. They mention texts from the shooter that didn’t sound like a typical 22-year-old and state that these observations raise questions. They say asking questions leads to being torn down or accused of holding conspiracy views, and they specify they aren’t claiming “Israel did it,” but insisting the questions about the event “don’t look good.” They raise specific questions: did the security team remove Charlie Kirk’s lapel mic after the incident and give it to someone else; what happened to the SIM card; did someone take the camera behind him; why was the crime scene contaminated and rebuilt. They admit they don’t know what is true but insist the questions deserve answers. They note that once they question, they’re labeled antisemitic, and they say they didn’t even bring up Israel. They emphasize the personal and national significance of the incident. Speaker 0 mentions a claim that Charlie Kirk was portrayed as Superman, with his body supposedly stopping the 30-odd-six bullet, and asks what would have happened if a 30-06 round hit him. Speaker 1 says it would likely blow his head off and leave remnants of the bullet, arguing that they don’t think such remnants have been found yet. They question why the chair and desk were moved and contend that a forensic expert could determine the shot’s origin, insisting they are simply asking questions. If those questions can be refuted, they would stop asking; but they claim they’re not getting any answers beyond “this is what happened” and being told to “shut up.” Speaker 0 adds that telling someone to be quiet amounts to labeling them antisemitic, and that when the trial comes, they will look like a fool. Speaker 1 says that’s a tactic of the left—when you call them out, they label you a name—and that the right is now doing the same to them.

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

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

"I thought the feds were saying they were looking for a bullet at some point, which is now very alarming to me. I don't understand that. How could they have been looking for a bullet? Because if I'm not seeing, and there isn't. I'm telling you, what happens in the front is not what happens in the back at all." "If I'm not seeing any blood, what what are we to take from that? The only thing that could make sense if what they're saying is true and that person took the shot from the place that they are saying that individual took the shot from, it would suggest that it it's a it it was inside of Charlie. Right? And they would know that. The feds would have known that." "So they would have communicated that they were never looking for a bullet."