TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

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

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

"Some of the Internet rumors that somehow Israel is behind the Charlie Kirk murder." "That's insane." "Israel also changes the orbit of the moon; Israel pushes the sun." "When you hate Jews, when you hate the Jewish state, you're willing to say anything and promote all these absurd, absurd rumors." "They're willing to kill us all the time." "We were poisoning the wells, we were drinking the blood of Christian children." "The Nazis said the same thing. You know, we're carrying vermin, we're spreading disease, and people believed it." "Well, since then, we've learned, when people spread these lies about us, prepare yourself for the assault." "Charlie Kirk said to me that he wrote me this detailed letter, you have to fight the slander. These untruths, these vilifications have consequences. And he was right." "He was going to win. That's why they shot him."

Speaker questions the FBI and media’s suggestion that 'this Tyler was some type of trans kid, lone shooter on a roof.' They claim they could give '150,000 reasons why Israel would benefit from Charlie Kirk being assassinated' and that 'the government in Israel ... would have fallen' if Kirk continued speaking. They say they can't give 'one reason why Tyler would' do it, even if he had a trans boyfriend. They reference 'Raw Alerts' and claim 'the dude running the Raw Alerts page is wearing a doggy mask and diapers and into trans fetish crap' and that he’s 'on our side fighting to expose corruption.' They argue the shooter 'didn't seem radicalized' with no posts on social media, asking what radicalized trans person do you know that didn't leave a memoir. They declare, 'this demonic state ... worship Satan, bomb children' and wonder how Israel would benefit; 'What about you guys?'

The speaker addresses claims that Israel is involved in Charlie Kirk's death and reviews the FBI's official narrative that "it was Tyler Robinson, this 22 year old leftist with a transgender boyfriend." He discusses the circumstantial case that "Israel played some role" but admits "we don't really have the information we need" and "we can't trust the FBI." He notes "There have been some tall claims ... not fully substantiated by evidence" and points to Max Blumenthal as "the source of this idea," citing "the article with unnamed sources, anonymous sources that create this narrative that Charlie Kirk was on the verge of flipping on Israel and is effectively implying that the donors wanted him dead." He covers the Bill Ackman meeting, saying "Charlie Kirk walked away from this meeting ... feeling blackmailed, feeling afraid," yet adds "we now have receipts and testimony and names about that meeting" showing "Charlie Kirk organized the event and it was fine." "I don't trust Max Blumenthal... This guy's a left wing Jew." "And you know who's implicated in this killing? The left."

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

- "Charlie Kirk is the pro Zionist guy." - "What if they were listening in to him and he was in communications with people saying, hey. I think I'm gonna go this direction and they knew his intentions or saw this pattern." - "Here's this pro Zionist guy with this incredibly powerful platform that they built, by the way, that Charlie has, thanks to them." - "So if he's gonna take what they gave him and turn it against them, that could literally destroy Israel because the youth is people they're most concerned about." - "We can't let him turn." - "Israel was never my top suspect until, you know, I've spent twenty four hours thinking about it, I'm like, it's not unreasonable. It's not even out of the question in terms of would Israel do this." - "it's in their wheelhouse."

This narrative is being promoted on Facebook and X. Milo Yiannopoulos was the first person to push the idea that it might have been a gripper, and he has gained 200,000 followers on X in the past twelve hours. Elon Musk replied to Milo on Twitter framing me as a fed twice in July; Eric Prince replied to Milo saying, "we need Eric Prince to protect the president. We need Eric Prince to protect everybody." Why is this guy now conspicuously being promoted everywhere and he was the first one to try to frame me? Was the assassination of Charlie Kirk regime change within the online right wing? Ben Shapiro said he's gonna pick up the blood stained microphone from Charlie Kirch's cold dead hands. Milo says, I'm coming out of retirement. Milo is a Jew; a pro Israel Jew. This guy's gonna replace Charlie Kirk with Ben Shapiro or Milo.

"I don't know who did this. And I sure hope that it was not from the left that would be better." "But it doesn't matter because the first Trump assassination also was not from the left." "It was just a guy who was going to also had Biden on his target list." "And it's been made in the ideology of this far right that you're seeing online." "It's part of a line, Brett Kavanaugh, Trump assassination, how Charlie Kirk," "It doesn't matter that it wasn't from the left because that part has been erased in the common litany of grievances." "Absolutely." "I mean, it's just it's just about the, momentum of violence. Right?" "If one side keeps punching, that's bad, that's really bad." "But it's much worse when one side punches, the other punches back." "That causes an escalation."

A speaker claimed few people get wealthy, and another speaker alleged Al Qaeda killed their family in Palestine using AI and technology. The first speaker stated the primary source of death in Palestine is that Hamas has realized there are millions of useful idiots. Another speaker accused them of using AI and technology to kill Palestinians, not just terrorists. The first speaker responded that if the speaker's argument was strong, they would allow them to talk. The second speaker thanked anyone else who supports using technology and AI to kill Palestinians.

Speaker 0 announces breaking news that “our greatest ally finally decided to stop genocide in Gaza.” Speaker 1 comments that this is probably because their prime minister is on trial again. Speaker 2, Shapiro Steen, questions where all the people who yelled about genocide have gone, noting that those who were “yelling about genocide now, poof, they’re just gone.” Speaker 3 presses: “Tell us more about how it’s not even a genocide.” Speaker 2 contrasts a “real genocide” with the Gaza situation, saying “not by any stretch of the imagination… a genocide,” and argues that when the supposed genocide stopped, “all the people who were fighting to stop it just disappeared,” asserting they didn’t give credit or say it was a good thing. Speaker 0 teases that “everyone is going to believe you,” then advertises Jake GTV News’s episode, sponsored by Palantir with the line “Finish them off. We deliver.” Speaker 1 complains that tech gurus “don’t seem to value human life,” then generalizes about a group with “tiny hats.” Speaker 0 adds, “they definitely had Jesus crucified.” Speaker 0 muses that Shapiro Steen might get them fired like Candace Owens. Speaker 2 mentions that “we killed Jesus,” but says they can still appropriate “the holy land and use the fake star of David… to usher in the new world order,” asking listeners to “just ask Satan.” Speaker 1, speaking as a Christian, says it should be mandated to go to Israel before heaven, and Speaker 4 says the place will welcome visitors like in Jerusalem, Nazareth, the Sea of Galilee. Speaker 1 questions how Israelis feel about Christians. Michael reports live from the holy land, noting that mention of Jesus “pisses these people off.” Speaker 0 asks if they actually spit on Christians in Israel, to which Speaker 1 confirms, “they literally spit on Christians in Israel.” Speaker 6 interrupts: “Shut it down. We get kicked out of every country for no reason, and facts are antiseptic.” Dennis is told not to mention Jesus again. Speaker 0 accuses the group of murdering thousands of innocent “sand people,” and Satan explains how to stop Christian influencers. Speaker 5 discusses using tools of battle, highlighting TikTok as “Number one” in the fight, and asks what the other important platform is, with Speaker 4 replying to yield to pressure. Speaker 4 recalls a past official recognition of Jerusalem as capital and moving the American embassy there, praising Miriam and Sheldon, and noting their trips to the White House. Speaker 1 remarks that, after the week’s events, the speaker deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, and Speaker 7, in Venezuela, promises a close relationship with Israel and moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem. Speaker 8 jokes about donors and elites, and another speaker notes a break room gathering for celebration, offering donuts for the Goyim and pizza for executives. Speaker 1 concludes with “Jackie was so based,” and the room is described as Producerberg. The group instructs staff to finish their goy slop and avoid talking about Jackie. Speaker 0 references JFK and the Epstein files, and calls Charlie Kirkberg “the Jew lover.” Dennis is urged to say “tolerance is strength.” The closing line: “Tolerance is strength, Nikki.” Speaker 1 ends with “You guys are such pussies. Christ is king,” followed by a final jab containing the nontolerant remark “Ching Chong,” and the directive that if you’re not following JankGTV, you’re “not based… retarded.”

Speaker 0 contrasts what is happening with a reference to Looney Tunes and uses that imagery to support a point about antisemitism accusations. They claim that some people who are accused of antisemitism are indeed antisemitic, describing them as “smart people asking questions like me,” while others who have been kicked out of Daily Wire are “just crazy.” They invoke Ben Shapiro to support their view, saying the situation proves he was right about these dynamics. They label a certain person as a “faux sophisticate,” agreeing that this label nails the situation. The speaker emphasizes that the idea of someone being an “antisemite” can be connected to what they view as a pattern or pattern-matching of behavior, and they repeat the phrase “A faux sophisticate” to underscore this point. Speaker 1 expands the discussion to the far right and Charlie Kirk, noting that there were plenty of people on the far right who disliked Charlie. They mention Gruyper groups (referred to as Gruyper’s) and state that they literally declared a “Gruyper war on Charlie Kirk,” arguing that he wasn’t radical enough for them and that this intolerance reflected a demand for more extreme rhetoric. The speaker reiterates a point they had previously made to Bill Maher, describing how the identification of Charlie Kirk as hateful fits into a broader framework. They pose a question about whether the Gripers could be the source of any negative assessment, suggesting that the opposite claim—that the Gripers were responsible—could theoretically be possible, though they consider it unlikely. The speaker then explains the evidence they cited: contemporaneous conversations the shooter had with family in which they called Kirk hateful. They argue that this shows that Kirk being labeled “hateful” is part of a left-wing matrix of thinking, and they articulate the idea of a “griper matrix” that asserts that Charlie Kirk should have been more hateful toward Jews to be acceptable to them. The central thrust is that the Gripers’ expectations for greater hatefulness toward Jews would align with their approval, implying that if Kirk had exhibited more virulence toward Jews, he would have been more favored by that faction. Overall, the dialogue weaves together critiques of alleged antisemitism accusations, the behavior and labeling of Charlie Kirk by far-right groups, and the contention that certain factions on both sides frame acceptability in terms of extremity toward Jewish targets, using the shooter’s reported conversations as a focal point for claims about how Kirk is perceived.

Speaker 0 questions Harrison about posting, two weeks before Charlie Kirk died, that there was a credible threat against his life and asks if the FBI has reached out to him, and whether he will identify who made the threat. Harrison responds that the person who told him asked not to reveal their identity, so he’s not going to give up a source. The exchange notes that there has been no rigorous investigation by the FBI, and asserts that, in the absence of such an investigation, “we are led to lead this investigation,” adding that Fort Huachuca is relevant. Candace thanks Harrison and presses again, asking who told him about the threat, highlighting that the FBI is not asking. Harrison reiterates that the source requested anonymity.

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.

"You gotta just give up. It's it's gonna come out. Whatever it is, it's gonna come out. There you would have to and I wouldn't put it past you. You'd have to get rid of all of us." "You got, like, 7,000,000,000 people you've got to ethnically cleanse right now if you wanted to just forget about the Charlie Kirk story." "In 1963, when JFK was shot, people didn't watch it on TikTok." "You traumatized all of us." "We're grieving because you assassinated Charlie Kirk in front of the entire world." "If you had pretended he slipped and fell on some ice in the winter, maybe you wouldn't have this response."

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss contemporary conspiracy theories surrounding Charlie Kirk. They state they do not believe the theory that Jews killed Charlie Kirk and, as it stands right now, think it was Tyler Robinson. They both agree on this point regarding the alleged killer. Speaker 1 shifts to addressing Nick Fuentes, noting they weren’t going to come for him until he called Ian Carroll “retarded.” Ian Carroll allegedly appeared in a livestream pleading with Speaker 0 to join in on the conspiracy. Speaker 1 repeats the insult, saying, “If you think that I feel sorry for you because you are retarded.” They challenge the credibility of claims about a “furry trans lover” storyline, asserting that discord’s own statements say the furry trans motive screenshots didn’t come from their servers. The discussion moves to alleged forensic and investigative inconsistencies. They reference a father identifying his son from a grainy rooftop silhouette before police have real evidence, and claim that the FBI has four-k footage showing the shot but left that part out. They question the ballistic details: a .30-06 round, known for blowing through concrete blocks and obliterating bone, allegedly gets stopped by Charlie’s “Superman like neck.” They note the absence of visible ballistic mess or blood spatter and question how bulletproof the spine would be. They claim the rifle was “disassembled within seconds after taking the shot” yet was found “fully assembled in the woods.” They state that the shooter stuffs the rifle in his pants to jump off, which clashes with the rifle being recovered fully assembled. They express skepticism about the overall narrative, suggesting that Nick Fuentes may be paid off or had his career threatened over this issue, and conclude that whatever the truth is, it is “not a good look” for Nick Fuentes. In summary, the speakers reject the claim that Jews killed Charlie Kirk and attribute it to Tyler Robinson; they criticize Nick Fuentes for engaging with conspiratorial narratives, challenge the veracity of related forensic and anecdotal claims, highlight inconsistencies in timelines and weapon handling, and suggest possible financial or career motive implications, framing the situation as damaging for Nick Fuentes.

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

"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."

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.

"This is evil. Israel using AI to put words in a dead man's mouth for their own propaganda." "This is the wake up call." "They couldn't stand a voice that didn't sound like theirs, and that's exactly why we have to fight." "Truth's worth the price every single time." "America was built on faith, on freedom, on family." "Don't go quiet." "Don't bend." "Don't give in." "Because this wasn't the end. This was the opening shot of a change that's coming, and it's gonna be for the better." "That is an evil thing to do, especially since Charlie Kirk stopped taking money from Israel and was even turning against them the last few months that he was alive." "So that makes that extra evil Zayo propaganda right there."

He will create a false equivalency between Charlie Kirk and the murder of the Hortmans in Minnesota. That's provably untrue. Melissa Hortman, the Democratic state legislator in Minnesota last three months ago, gunned down by an anti abortion Trump supporter. Yes or no? Wrong. How do I know? Because Vance Bolter, the man who did it, wrote in his letter that it had nothing to do with Trump or being pro life. He blamed Tim Walls. Did you see anyone celebrating the death of them gleefully? Did you see so many professors doing so, showing children a snuff? spitting at their vigil. Joe Walsh will say that this is an overreaction. From the moment Charlie Kirk was assassinated, I said, we don't know who did it. All of this is by design so that the left and spineless right can make this conversation about conservatives responding to the cold blooded terroristic assassination... And maybe if I would have picked up the phone, maybe Charlie would have had a fighting chance.

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.

Speaker 0 rails against dissent: “Like, if you disagree with me, fine. If you think Israel killed Charlie Kirk and then vanished beneath the trap door and flew to Tuba City on a private jet, fine.” He adds, “But then people start to say, you disagree with me? You're you got the memo.” He asserts, “every event that happens in America or the world is the doing of Israel,” and says if you disagree, “you got the call[.]” He notes, “you’re out,” and, “They will. And they will.” He proclaims, “I can’t wait for the apology forms” and, “cannot wait to humiliate you more, because more than anything, what I love is humiliate people who are wrong. I live for it actually.” He concludes, “So please, please, I can’t wait to never speak to those people again.”

"This is an actual group chat, which happened two days before Charlie Kirk was assassinated." "There were nine people in total on this chat, including Charlie and Rob McCoy." "Rob McCoy was on this text thread." "just lost another huge Jewish donor. 2,000,000 a year because we won't cancel Tucker. I'm thinking of inviting Candace." "Charlie writes, Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this. Leaving me no choice but to leave the pro Israel cause." "please do not invite Candace. That might feel good short term but it's not good long term."

"Charlie Kirk should not have been assassinated." "That's what I said that caused tens of thousands of Democrats to come into my comments and mentions literally hurling homophobic slurs at me." "The ultimate irony is that that's the reason why you justify the assassination of Charlie Kirk was because he was such a bigot and he said all these horrible things, which aren't even real quotes, by the way." "You hate him for things he never even said." "Meanwhile, you guys are actively saying things that are infinitely worse than anything that Charlie Kirk said." "And you guys don't see it." "You don't have that ability to self reflect." "You have no ability to self reflect." "You guys you guys can literally sit there being the nastiest, meanest, most cruel hearted people ever and genuinely believe that you're the good guy because you're doing it to bad people." "Oh, yeah. What is wrong with you?"