TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 claims to have explosive, verifiable information that can publicly challenge the Zionist-occupied Trump administration to deny it if untrue. They urge Kash Patel to deny the claim if it is false, noting that the information is highly relevant. They credit Mel, who they say was early with the reporting, and say they had heard rumors but sought verifiable proof before going on the limb to assert authenticity. The core assertion is that there were 12 Israeli cell phones on the ground at Utah Valley University on the day Charlie Kirk was assassinated. The speaker clarifies that these were not VPNs routed through Israel, but 12 personal cell phone accounts opened in Israel. They claim these accounts were on the ground at Utah Valley University on September 10, the day Charlie Kirk was shot. The speaker states that the NSA knows this, Kash Patel knows this, and people in the current administration know that too, and are desperate to keep the information from the public. They question why the administration would want to suppress the information and why it would spook those at the top, suggesting that if there is nothing to hide, there would be nothing to hide. To anticipate counterarguments, the speaker plays devil’s advocate, noting that perhaps the cell phones belonged to exchange students or Israelis touring UVU that day, or that 12 American students had Israeli-based cell phones after returning from a summer abroad and wished to keep them running in Utah. They acknowledge they do not know the answer and express a desire to know, emphasizing the need to uncover why this information is being concealed and who those 12 Israeli cell phones belonged to. Throughout, the speaker refrains from evaluating the claims’ truth and simply presents the asserted facts and questions, urging accountability and transparency regarding the supposed Israeli cell phone presence and its connection to Charlie Kirk’s assassination. They close by reiterating their dislike of secrets, especially when they pertain to the public figure’s death.

Speaker 1 describes a man on the team who, after he was shot, runs toward the vehicles, stays outside the vehicles, and films a TikTok selfie video. They ask to identify this person, and it is confirmed to be the audio-visual (AV) team member who runs the cameras. This individual is said to have said, “Charlie just got shot,” and is the same person associated with the footage and the AV setup contracted to shoot the coverage. Speaker 0 clarifies that this person works for a company called VI, which provides contract AV/video personnel, and is not a security guy. He is the AV team member who runs the cameras. He also is described as the person who “took down the cameras” and there were questions about what happened to the footage, noting that this is a legitimate inquiry. Speaker 1 adds that after the event, someone goes to the camera behind Charlie, pulls the camera down, and it looks like they pull the SD card out; this footage is in the hands of the FBI and was not deleted or erased. The SD card was pulled by someone named Senga, and the footage ended up with the FBI. Speaker 0 reiterates that the AV person works for VI, the video contracting company, not as security. He expresses confusion about the phone usage and states that it’s not for him to understand that part; he observes that, in tragic events, people pull their phones out instead of running, and says that’s for the AV person to explain. He notes that the AV person does not work for them, but from what he has seen, this is the same person who took down the cameras, prompting legitimate questions about where that footage went. He confirms that the person was interviewed by the FBI, asked questions, and that all relevant material was turned over.

The speaker introduces Emmanuel Bearer as someone they consider extremely shady and outlines a request to obtain explicit footage of him, specifically who he was with in the crowd, and to identify every person in attendance. The speaker claims Bearer is a former Oracle engineer, likely from Germany, and notes that Bearer attended the event. They question how Bearer, a relatively obscure figure, became an eyewitness who appeared in Salt Lake City in coverage by the mainstream media, specifically mentioning PBS. The speaker asks how PBS or other media outlets knew to reach out to Bearer and whether Bearer tweeted or otherwise indicated he was there. The speaker describes a desire to understand the process by which Bearer was selected for media interviews and to replicate a method of on-the-ground reporting at the UVU campus rather than relying on Bearer’s account. They reference a prior incident involving Tiffany Barker to illustrate concerns about how media connections are made and how certain individuals gain attention. The speaker asks for clarification on how Emmanuel Bearer was chosen as an eyewitness and why mainstream media pursued him. The speaker then presents a clip of Bearer testifying on PBS, quoting Bearer: “I hear this loud sound, and I'm like, that wasn't what I thought it was, is it? I was like, no. This can't be happening right now. And we all ducked.” They note that Bearer appeared on nearly every news channel and mention that there may be a longer clip they could locate. Finally, the speaker appeals to anyone who attended the UVU event with Bearer to come forward to clarify who Bearer was with, to send photos, and to explain how Bearer became an eyewitness that the mainstream media wanted to speak to, expressing strong suspicion about the unattended appearance and coverage of Bearer.

The speaker alleges that a company chose a "least troublesome" witness they could easily win against, and that this choice was made the day before the witness was killed as part of a plan. The speaker claims there is enough data to assert the individual did not take his own life and that a larger plan was behind his death. The speaker states that culprits always make mistakes and that this information has been shared with the FBI. While the San Francisco FBI made no promises, there is hope that Kash Patel or the federal government will take interest and allocate resources to investigate. The speaker notes widespread support for the idea that the deceased did not commit suicide, citing reactions to PBD's podcast and other sources.

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.

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.”

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 address a viral video about Charlie’s chief of staff, Mikey, and explain why they are discussing it. - The video in question attacks Mikey, Charlie’s chief of staff, claiming based on a few seconds of clips that he allegedly has a nonchalant or calm reaction to Charlie’s murder. They describe this as a “extremely disgusting attack.” - Speaker 1 recounts what happened: they were at the scene when a shooting occurred. The loud crack is heard; they turn and see Charlie has been shot. They realize there is a shooter on the scene. They decide to get out of there rather than be shot, noting Charlie had a security team that leapt into action to get Charlie out. - Speaker 0 notes their own actions: he, too, considered getting into the car, but decided against it. He was ahead of Mikey as they left. He recalls a moment where he paused to assess the situation, then saw Mikey, who was profoundly freaked out. Mikey’s lip was quivering, and he said, “I need to call Erica,” then took his phone and began calling Erica. Speaker 0 also called his own mom, saying there had been a shooting and that he was okay. - They describe Mikey’s later actions: after the initial shock, Mikey took charge like a “general directing a battle,” coordinating hospital transport and information flow, and directing people where to go. When they learned Charlie had died, Mikey told them, “now none of you can say anything that you've heard because it is Erica is not going to hear about this from anyone except me.” - Speaker 2 asks if Mikey could be involved in a conspiracy to murder Charlie. Speaker 1 responds that such accusations are vile and describes how some people online fuel such narratives, comparing the mindset to getting a “high” from dangerous or provocative content. - The speakers emphasize Mikey’s heroic actions: Mikey was distressed but stepped up to direct people and communicate with Erica and others. Speaker 0 notes that he, too, was traumatized after learning of Charlie’s death and rushed to be with Erica and the team. - They address the specific allegation that Mikey was on the phone immediately during the incident; they state he was not on the phone but was taking social videos to share with their group chats. He would send updates to Charlie’s social media during the event while the crowd was changing, then, overwhelmed by the noise and shock, he put his fingers in his ears but his phone remained in his hand as he moved away. - They describe the scene as a cordoned-off area with a narrow gap that people used to exit, where Mikey walked briskly or ran as he processed the trauma and continued to direct actions. They reiterate Mikey “turned into a general on a field marshaling the troops.” - Speaker 1 closes by urging readers who propagate narratives attacking Mikey to reconsider, stating that such narratives are bad and gross and a choice that shouldn’t be made.

The speaker challenges the credibility of the narrative about Charlie Kirk’s incident and points to security footage to raise questions. They reference a security detail member wearing “meta AI shades” who appears to be filming. According to the speaker, when Charlie is hit, the security person turns on the shades, films, and then, as chaos unfolds with a crowd rushing the stage, carries out a handoff. The speaker describes a handoff occurring to a gentleman in a shirt. They claim that this is the moment when someone takes something off Charlie and hands it to the man in the black shirt, who then runs off. The speaker asserts that the item being handed off is the “laugh mic” that allegedly contained an explosive device, implying that the security detail’s first priority was to remove the suspicious object from Charlie and pass it to the other person rather than ensuring Charlie’s safety. The speaker emphasizes that the security detail “knew exactly what to do” and questions how the person receiving the item would know what to do in such chaotic moments, suggesting coordinated movement. They argue that the security actions undermine the official narrative about Charlie Kirk and Tyler Robinson, indicating that the FBI should be questioned and accountability demanded from the FBI and this administration. In summary, the speaker uses the footage to claim that the security team’s behavior—specifically the meta AI shades operator filming, the rapid handoff of an object from Charlie to a man in black, and the subsequent actions—casts doubt on the established story and points to potential coordination and a failure to prioritize Charlie’s immediate safety. The call is for greater scrutiny and accountability of the FBI and the administration.

The clip centers on Skyler, a man seen in multiple interviews right after the Charlie Kirk assassination. The presenters highlight that Skyler appeared in about four online interviews, and he’s pictured with sunglasses on top of his head behind Charlie’s head. They note that the day Charlie Kirk was shot, Skyler was front row to witness it, and in the interviews he never claims to be press or someone important, yet he sits on the Main Floor at the Charlie Kirk Memorial. They question how this is possible and point to oddities in his interviews. In one sequence, Skyler is described as being only about 10 to 15 feet away when it happened, with security to his left and nothing else in front of him—“Close as he could.” They show Skyler and Charlie’s bodyguard moving to a different area once Charlie arrives and questions begin. Skyler is described as front row and center, with the bodyguard directly in front of Charlie and Skyler off to the side with sunglasses on his head. The footage is contrasted with his Facebook activity, which the speakers examine afterward. They state that at the memorial service Skyler was “sitting on the Main Floor” with a floor pass for a press conference, seated literally “maybe 10 or so rows from the front of the stage.” They contrast this with Skyler’s Facebook page, noting that he has “two point, I think, k followings,” and that from 2018 to 02/2025 there are “maybe seven posts and like 10 pictures.” The presenters remark that there is little material on his page, suggesting a discrepancy between his apparent access and his online footprint. Further, the speakers recount Skyler’s account of entering the stadium. He says, “There is an unlimited amount of security, Secret service, military, police, empty. Steel barricades all around. Yeah. They’re definitely protecting this place,” and adds that there had been “an overflow,” with people waiting since 05:30 in the morning. Yet Skyler ends up with a floor pass and sits just a few rows back on the Main Floor with a badge that says media, prompting the question: “How?” They describe how another person explained the process of passing through multiple layers to obtain a media badge and access the floor. The discussion turns speculative: Skyler “was handpicked to do all these interviews,” to have “front row” seating, and to be present at key moments. The dialogue then shifts to a series of unusual videos by Skyler, described as “bizarre.” One clip contains a speaker describing an “indecision night” where they say, “I photoshopped in my mind the blood away,” “I rewound the tape,” and “the shooter… goes down the stairs,” with continued vivid, fantastical editing of the event.

There were multiple improbable factors that would have had to align for these bombs to be discovered at the same time on a sidewalk, prompting questions about a broader conspiracy and how such a scenario could unfold. The speakers emphasize that while they want to avoid a conspiracy path, there are many questions still open, including the handling of video footage. Regarding video records, one speaker notes that they want to review January 6 video to see if anyone returned to the locations, but that video apparently does not exist anymore. They do have January 5 video, but have been told that no one preserved January 6. This raises eyebrows as they consider whether the devices were placed by an inexperienced person who was trying to set them down quickly or whether the devices were left to be found. Mrs. Younger’s account is highlighted: she walked out her back door and did not see anything earlier in the morning, but saw the devices later, which would give a reason to believe she would have noticed them if they had been there in the morning. This observation is part of why they want to talk to her. One speaker is blown away by a point: according to the FBI, the FBI’s internal data indicate 39,000 videos showing the hoodie-clad pipe bomber—referred to as the C. Virkel bomber—movements that night, from various camera angles. Washington, DC, Capitol Hill is described as among the most surveilled areas in the world. Yet there is a claim that there is no footage from January 6 of the actual areas a person would have had to travel to place the pipe bombs. The other speaker confirms that there are cameras along some Capitol Police lines that show walking paths, including footage from Capitol Police cameras, but the angles that would show positions behind the RNC and behind the DNC do not exist today, at least not in a way that captures the relevant movements. This absence has limited the investigation into the theory that the devices could have been placed earlier and then moved or re-placed. They are now going back through Capitol Police footage, including from the Fairchild Building near the DNC, which has provided the most evidence so far. The team is reviewing hours from about 8 PM on May 5 to 1 PM on January 6 to determine whether anyone else passed by, whether there was any suspicious activity, and whether the devices were moved again. The investigators are evaluating step-by-step explanations for these anomalies, considering whether the Secret Service dog failed to detect one device or whether Mrs. Younger missed the other, whether the devices were not present at that time, or whether weather and other factors affected detections. They acknowledge that with so many circumstances, some “smoke” might indicate “fire.” They hope the FBI is reviewing cell phone data to determine if the suspected bomber returned or if a co-conspirator was involved in setting timers or re-placing devices. The transcript ends with an acknowledgment of ongoing investigation scope and questions.

A viewer notes a person in a blue shirt visible amid the chaos who sends a text and then takes a photo, and they wonder who that is. The speaker mentions receiving a ton of messages from current Turning Point employees about the company. The person is wearing a shirt that says Wirefi. According to sources at Turning Point, it was a rather young company that hasn't been around for very long, that came out in a really big way in terms of sponsorship for this tour. This aligns with Wi Fi being the backdrop advertiser behind Charlie in the event clips, suggesting the person may have attended as their first event of the season, as major sponsors. Judging by the placement and the fact that a wirefi donor or employee is there, we can draw the conclusion that they sponsored this very event. And I'm interested in knowing who that is.

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

Speaker 0 appears to be trying to move the conversation along, indicating a desire to shift focus and figure out what happened. The scene then shifts to a visual moment that draws attention: “Wow. Look at that. Beautiful. Look at that,” suggesting a notable or striking image or location. The core narrative centers on Mikey McCoy, identified as Charlie Kirk’s chief of staff and friend. It is stated that Mikey spent the entire morning dutifully and loyally by Charlie’s side, filming everything. The tension arises at the moment Charlie is killed: according to the speaker, Mikey abandoned Charlie in that instant. The crucial question posed is whether Charlie was actually dead and whether he needed help at that moment. The speaker then asks if Mikey rushed to Charlie’s aid or instead pulled out his phone to continue filming, implying that Mikey’s actions or inactions could be revealing of his priorities at the critical moment. The line “Anything?” echoes a probing or accusatory tone, followed by a blunt “No. Nothing.” This sequence reinforces the claim that Mikey did not intervene or assist Charlie as the situation deteriorated. The narration emphasizes the abrupt change in Mikey McCoy’s behavior, asserting that “All of a sudden, Mikey McCoy didn't care about Charlie Kirk at all and just left him behind.” This creates a stark contrast between the earlier portrayal of Mikey as a loyal companion who documented the day and the sudden implication of neglect or abandonment at Charlie’s time of need. The passage culminates with a direct, open-ended inquiry: “What is going on?” This question underscores the overall mystery and suggests that the relationship dynamics and the sequence of events surrounding Charlie’s death, as well as Mikey’s actions, are the focus of concern. In summary, the speaker contrasts Mikey McCoy’s supposed early devotion and his later alleged abandonment of Charlie Kirk at the moment of a fatal incident, raising questions about whether Charlie was dead, whether help was needed, and whether Mikey prioritized filming over aiding Charlie. The framing invites scrutiny of Mikey’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances.

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 questions the narrative: 'random trans shooter' on the roof who 'took this shot' and was 'undetected' because the FBI released video footage. He asks if this means 'he must have already had planted the gun on the roof prior' and wonders 'why didn't he have it on him when he was leaving?' He questions the lack of footage—'why don't we have any images of this kid leaving the school?' and 'video footage of this kid jumping off the roof?' He says, 'he runs roughly one mile with a long arm rifle in broad daylight to stash it in the woods' and argues, 'you definitely wouldn't carry the rifle with you' to blend in, citing 'an American flag shirt on.' He references 'criminal minds' and BAU, concluding, 'This is weird, guys. This is freaking weird.'

The speaker references a person who was removing memory cards from cameras about four minutes after what is described as the Charlie Kirk assassination, noting that something about the situation didn’t sit right. They mention Candace released a video showing how this person reacted, and that diligent investigation followed, including a campus visit to UVU to examine the events with a play-by-play analysis. The speaker says they will leave a link to that video but first shows a clip. In the clip, Speaker 1 describes the sequence: “He doesn't try to grab Charlie. He doesn't duck. His first reaction standing right here is to turn this way and start booking.” The person “starts booking back here,” and Speaker 1 notes that he sees the shot and that Charlie hasn’t even hit the ground yet. Charlie is described as being in a position where “Charlie’s like this,” and the person pivots to lean back. Security personnel respond by coming over, grabbing him, and pulling him to the ground. Meanwhile, Terrell Farnsworth “has already turned and begun running back here to climb up on that wall.” The speaker asks the audience to imagine there had just been a shooting, with chaos and people running. Charlie Kirk “was just shot,” and the wall is described as “almost as tall as I am.” The speaker asks the audience if they can see, confirming visibility. The analysis then focuses on the person’s actions: measuring “how much of a pain in the ass he climbed up right here and then threw that loose rock and just so he could get to his vantage point.” The speaker calls it out as an attempt to explain the sequence from the vantage point up the wall. The clip continues with the person producing a selfie video: “Oh, they shot Charlie. They just shot Charlie. They just shot Charlie.” They refer to him as “Agent” and note his statements like “They shot Charlie. God help him.” The speaker says this behavior is a major red flag and cites it as the most troubling aspect. The running scene is described further: as the person runs out, he looks to his left and, in the footage, is seen climbing up, then reacting to the news that Charlie was shot. The voiceover emphasizes the emotional state (or lack thereof) as the footage shows the stampede of people and chaos. The speaker underscores that, to them, the absence of emotion on the person’s face during these events is “the biggest red flag of all.”

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.

I was about 10 feet to Charlie's left when it happened. It was one of those moments that will crystallize in your mind forever. You hear the pop, and it’s not completely clear what it is at first. I looked to my right and immediately saw what had happened. It was just one shot. The security got him immediately, got him into the car immediately, and then out again. They could not have done their job any better. Then, what do we do? I sent a message on Telegram to Turning Point, telling them to lockdown. I imagined they’d already seen it, but I said, lockdown Turning Point. I called my mom and said, I can’t say more, but mom, Charlie got shot. I love you. I have to go. Then I met with other team members, and we got to the hospital within about twenty-five minutes, and the rest of the day unfolded from there. Staff decided to address this head on because there’s so much intrigue, and I’m going to do a generous thing. The intrigue is because people care about Charlie. Blake, you were there and you interacted with Mikey. You left the scene and then reconnected with Mikey. So, explain what the video is. The video is by someone who attacked Mikey, Charlie’s friend, Charlie’s chief of staff, a guy we’ve seen on the show the last few weeks. They claim, based on a few seconds of clips, that he allegedly has a nonchalant or calm reaction to Charlie’s murder. This is an extremely disgusting attack. I was there when it happened and I was next to Mikey when it happened. When the shooting occurs, we both hear a loud crack and turn to see Charlie who has been shot. We both realize there is a shooter on the scene. We hear the crack and don’t know if it came from far or close, or if a mass shooting is unfolding. My reaction, and Mikey’s, was to get out of there before we were both shot. That is not us abandoning Charlie. Charlie had a security team; they leapt into action and got Charlie out, which was their job. My job was not to be a hero or get in the way. I remember running past the SUV we came in on, thinking, should I get in that car? Then I thought that would be stupid, and I kept going. I was ahead of Mikey as we left. We got out and ran for more than fifteen or twenty seconds. I paused, looked around, and saw Mikey. I will never forget what I saw. Mikey is usually bubbly and happy, but he was profoundly freaked out. His lip was quivering, something I’d never seen from him. He said, I think he literally said, he needs to call Erica, then he calls Erica. He also calls his dad, Rob McCoy, and says, Dad, someone shot Charlie. You need to call all of your pastor friends. We then gathered to direct actions: to get to the hospital and to relay information to Erica. After the call, Mikey regained control and stepped up, directing a battle-like flow: get to the hospital, wait here, and get information to Erica.

The conversation threads through a tangled set of relationships and alleged secrets surrounding Erika and her past marriages. Speaker 0 introduces Erika’s first husband, Derek Chelsvigg, and notes a young daughter from Erika’s earlier marriage, questioning why this history is hidden and suggesting possible trafficking concerns. They mention an apparent photoshoot with Erika’s ex-husband and speculate about whether Erika had another daughter, while observing that information about her past is being scrubbed online. The speakers reference Erika’s old Instagram and her ex-husband’s social media remaining private, implying secrecy around Erika’s past. They wonder if Erika is a time traveler and recall a past shoot with someone named Tyler, asking whether he was murdered or disappeared. They mention Cabot Phillips dating Erika after the marriage, and a timeline: seven days after that marriage, Cabot Phillips is seen playing ball with someone named Charlie. They propose theories that Erika could have harmed Charlie or that Charlie simply disappeared, and note that an ex-boyfriend may have reappeared in the scene. The possibility is raised that Erika is a honeypot moving between relationships, with “stepping stones” in her life. Speaker 0 also reveals that Erika has a sister, and asks where she is. Speaker 2 introduces a whistleblower: an insider who warns that exposing the truth would provoke retaliation against him and anyone who helps him. This person found emails, approvals, and signatures tying Erika’s wife’s charity work to the same network, and says he didn’t yell or accuse but went quiet, believing that if Erika is part of the network, everything has been a lie. For him, the matter shifted from politics to a personal crisis, and he says that if he stays quiet, he’s “one of them”; if he speaks, he’s dead, but people deserve to know. Speaker 0 asserts that Charlie discovered information about Erika and discussed filing for divorce two days before Charlie’s disappearance; there has still been no autopsy released, and Erika is the only person who could release it, labeled as “Sussy.” Speaker 1 announces a situation that is “absolutely out of control,” criticizing incompetent politicians and referencing a presidential figure, then broadens to state-level politics with John McCain mentioned. The speaker complains about campaign contributions, special interests, and lobbyists, and predicts political turnover. They vow to “make this country so great again” and describe an event where, according to the speaker, reporters who were crying were present—hard, better reporters who were once known to the speaker as not good people. The exchange ends with a more casual check-in: “How you doing back there?”

Speaker 0 argues the Charlie Kirk story keeps getting weirder. They claim a random trans shooter was on the roof, took this shot, runs across into the rooftop, jumps down, somehow undetected because the FBI releases a video footage. Was this when he was walking into the building, then he must have already had planted the gun on the roof prior, and he somehow managed to walk back in the second time without the weapon. If he left with a weapon and hid it in the woods, why didn't he have it on him when he was leaving? They say he runs roughly one mile with a long arm rifle in broad daylight to stash it in the woods. If you were running, you wouldn't carry the rifle with you. He wore an American flag shirt. The FBI with all their resources, that's the best photo? Didn’t we watch Criminal Minds? They claim BAU would rerender that image and get it pixel perfect. Face recognition software could redigitalize that kid's face with AI to pixel perfect; this is weird.

- 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.

Candace Owens is described as a former friend of Charlie and at one time an employee of Turning Point, accused of peddling conspiracies and “building her business off of these lies,” with the assertion that she is making “a huge amount of money” from them. The speaker’s response to Candace Owens and others spreading these lies is simply: “Stop.” The conversation then shifts to a revelation that the interview was prerecorded, with sources from CBS News and audience members who say they had to do multiple takes because Barry wanted to read a prompter and questions were pre-submitted. In addressing the question, the speaker asserts that the podcaster Candace Owens and others are “lying,” and that “All of the money. Millions upon millions of dollars” have been earned by some people, while others did not benefit as claimed. The speaker argues that Candace Owens implies that building a business from podcasting results in immediate wealth, but claims the speaker “already had this business” and was “already at top of the chart.” Eric responds, and the speaker’s response to what to say to Candace Owens who is lying is “stop,” with a request for Erica to be explicit about what was lied about. The speaker claims to have reviewed lists and cannot find the lie, asserting that “The lies that I find are coming out of Turning Point USA.” Examples cited as lies from Turning Point USA include Mikey’s blood on him, Mikey’s dad being confused, and Rob McCoy’s statements about his father, which the speaker says Rob McCoy was confused about. The speaker also says Mikey’s departure as a hero does not feel honest, and alleges Charlie’s claim that he stopped a 30-06 bullet due to healthy eating and strong bones was a modern-day Christian miracle and a lie. The speaker asserts Charlie never wavered in his support for Israel, calling that a “nasty lie,” and accuses Turning Point USA of lying about Charlie’s life in the last weeks. The speaker also mentions claims that Barry won something, and questions whether Charlie’s evangelical commitment and preference for Catholic architecture were misrepresented as lies. The speaker notes further that Turning Point USA lied about various other points, including a supposed “blood bad blood” between Ben Chifferro and others, and Terrell Farnsworth being told to remove an SD card by police, stating that Terrell Farnsworth personally told the speaker that was not true. The speaker claims Terrell removed the SD cards because hats were being stolen, not because of other thefts, and questions the logic of taking the cameras instead of just the SD card, especially the camera behind Terrell’s head. Additional alleged lies include Charlie establishing a Doge, which is claimed not to have existed, and prior to Elon Musk’s government-accountability remark, that Charlie Christine flew drones—described as a major lie by Brian Harpold, who also allegedly stated that security had communicated with UB police to secure rooftops, which the speaker calls a lie. The speaker asks what they lied about, acknowledging mistakes but insisting they have not found a lie, and asks why there isn’t the same energy about lies from the feds, who allegedly told lies as well. The speaker references missing footage of Tyler Robinson turning himself in, unresolved questions about Egyptian planes, and years of tracking Charlie and Erika, with others laughing at these points. The speaker asks explicitly what they lied about and requests clarity, noting possible time-zone mistakes and a timeline discrepancy, and asking where the speaker is lying.