reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Not always. I just noticed that around some of these exchanges, there's ellipses above them. It looks like they're cherry picking certain exchanges. So that 'My dad is super MAGA' just comes out of nowhere because they picked it from a totally different part of the conversation. These messages are clearly doctored is what I would say. They're doctored. Tyler's being corp you know, forthcoming. We're protecting him in some capacity. I find that to be unacceptable. K? Unacceptable. I want every single text message. I want time stamps. It is conspicuous that you are not telling us when this was sent because it sounds like it's when the campus is on lockdown, and he's gotta go back and gotta clean up. And then the next day when his dad is getting clued in after the picture's been released. They're not telling us that. Okay? We need full answers.

'we're not getting the full story because I just spiritually know that more people are involved.' They suspect 'two different people'—'the person in the maroon... is different from the person that's walking up the stairs.' They note 'Something made its way around the entire town, and into my tips line repeatedly' and reference 'It is a very clear image of Tyler Robinson, allegedly taken, I'll say allegedly for safety here.' They want to plot 'this alleged Dairy Queen stop onto our timeline' with '06:38PM' as 'an alleged photo.' They cite politics: 'Since Trump got into office, my dad has been pretty die hard MAGA,' discuss 'left versus right' and 'the trans thing is here.' They ask, 'Is this AI or is this a female fed that put these messages together?' They note 'squad car parked right by it.' Finally, 'Just show us the footage. Okay? I'm demanding it.'

In a video discussion, Stefan Gardner argues that forensic evidence, particularly dust samples, will effectively end conspiracy theories about who fired the shot that killed Charlie Kirk. He contends that dust from the rocks on the roof will leave a unique signature that will be found on the killer’s clothes, the gun, and the shoes, making shoe tread and soil samples crucial to the investigation. Gardner also notes that dust and soil will be found on items connected to the killer’s lay-down on the roof and asserts that gun residue on the killer’s hands would be transferred to the steering wheel, making the killer’s car a major part of the evidence. Responding to this, another speaker, James Lee, mocks the idea that dust matching should come before bullet-to-gun matching, calling the discussion about dust a clownish distraction. The conversation emphasizes the broader expectation that trial evidence will concede to the narrative that the killer’s DNA and shoe dust will identify the perpetrator, while acknowledging public skepticism about the FBI’s presentation of evidence and the timing of disclosures. The speakers contrast the claimed forensic signatures with perceived gaps in the FBI’s narrative, arguing that the investigation will eventually reveal the gun, DNA, and other physical proof at trial. They anticipate that the evidence will demonstrate that the shooter’s shoes and vehicle contain trace material consistent with the crime scene and that the gun was used, but they express doubt about official explanations and the timing or availability of certain evidence, including video footage. A central theme is a critique of the FBI and their handling of the case: the speakers challenge the transparency of the investigation, suggesting that video footage and CCTV evidence should be released to restore public trust. They reference the demand for CCTV footage showing key actions: Tyler Robinson on campus, climbing onto the roof, taking the shot, and then fleeing. They assert there is video evidence of the shooting and question why it has not been released, noting claims that 3,000 people witnessed the incident live and that there is video evidence of planning and movement around the campus, including entrances and parking structures. The dialogue also touches on inconsistencies alleged in material evidence, such as a 30-06 round discussion, with the group arguing that even the smallest round would not plausibly produce the described wound at the distances claimed. They insist that standard investigative procedures would include sharing footage and autopsy details, and they demand transparency on the autopsy, CCTV, and video evidence from the crime scene. Overall, the speakers insist that the investigation should present complete video footage and corroborating evidence to verify the narrative surrounding Tyler Robinson and the murder of Charlie Kirk, labeling the current presentation as “slop.”

The speaker presents a video of a suspect's roommate reading a text message allegedly sent at 6:17 AM. The text says, "I love you guys. I made some choices, I love you choices, and you guys don't know anything about this. You guys don't know anything about this. But I'm gonna be gone for a while." The text also says, "I don't wanna say anything more and implicate you in any way because you guys don't know anything about this." The speaker highlights the repetition of "You guys don't know anything about this" in the message. The text concludes with, "I love you guys, and I'm sorry for all the trouble this has caused." A journalist asks to see a photo of the phone screen. The roommate says reading the text is difficult for him. The speaker questions if the roommate knows more than he is saying, based on his nervousness and body language.

In the exchange, Speaker 0 questions whether the other is maintaining that there were no planes that hit the World Trade Center. Speaker 1 clarifies that this is not the claim they are making; rather, there is no significant wreckage from a large Boeing crash at any of the four events. This framing emphasizes a distinction between the presence of aircraft impact and the apparent absence of substantial debris. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 saw the videotape that others saw, prompting a response that encourages a frame-by-frame analysis of the South Tower. Speaker 1 asserts that what you will see is a “fake, a cartoon display,” arguing that an aluminum airplane cannot pass through a building like the South Tower as if it were thin air. In other words, Speaker 1 contends that the footage demonstrates a simulated or cartoon-like depiction rather than a real-time account of an aircraft penetrating the structure. Following this, Speaker 0 probes whether Speaker 1 is suggesting that the news media was involved in this fabrication, indicating a belief that media sources contributed to the apparent display. Speaker 1 affirms the suggestion by stating “Yes,” and notes that there was only one so-called real-time film, adding that “we don’t really understand how they did that.” This introduces a claim of media involvement and a mystery surrounding the production of the visible footage, implying manipulation or concealment of the true events. The dialogue ends with Speaker 1 mentioning that there are “video ex” (likely beginning to refer to video evidence or explanations) but the thought is cut off, leaving an incomplete reference to further material or evidence that would support the previous claims about the nature of the footage and the method by which it was produced.

"Not always. I just noticed that around some of these exchanges, there's ellipses above them." "Around some of these exchanges, there's ellipses above if you look really closely." "Yeah. And it looks like they're cherry picking certain exchanges." "So that Yeah. My dad is super MAGA just comes out of nowhere because they picked it from a totally different part of the conversation." "Yeah. These messages are clearly doctored is what I would say. They're doctored." "I want every single text message." "I want time stamps." "It's it is conspicuous that you are not telling us when this was sent because it sounds like it's when the campus is on lockdown, and he's gotta go back and gotta clean up." "And you have a right to be a little bit uncomfortable about that because I'm a lot of bit uncomfortable about that. We need full answers."

Yeah. These messages are clearly doctored is what I would say. They're doctored. I want every single text message. I want time stamps. It's conspicuous that you are not telling us when this was sent because it sounds like it's when the campus is on lockdown, and he's gotta go back and he's gotta clean up, and then all of a sudden we're in the next day when his dad is getting clued in after the picture's been released. They're not telling us that. Okay? And you have a right to be a little bit uncomfortable about that, because I'm a lot of bit uncomfortable about that. We need full answers.

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.

According to the FBI, Tyler was positioned here and took the shot. The video they provided to us, and it's edited. It starts as Tyler's running off the roof, but this is that rooftop vent; had they given us the full video, we should have been able to see Tyler in this area with his back or with his backpack and his gear and assembling, disassembling the gun, whatever the FBI is saying. But instead, we get the video of him running off the roof. We don't get the full video. The camera was positioned somewhere right here. This is the field of view of the camera. So we've got an edited version, and I think we need to push to get the whole version.

The speaker claims that there was a scandal where their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees and says there is no evidence. The speaker insists that there is evidence everywhere and wants it to be put on the show. The other person explains that they can't put on unverified information. The speaker continues to assert that their campaign was spied on and that it was caught. They accuse the other person of knowing this but not wanting to acknowledge it. The other person denies knowing anything about it.

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

In the excerpt, the discussion centers on a torture video and questions surrounding redactions and the handling of victims. The key points are: - It is stated that Sultan Ahmed bin Suleyman Suleyem sent the torture video to Epstein in 2009. The transcript presents Epstein’s replies within that exchange, including: “Where are you? Are you okay?” and, reflecting a mix of fascination and distress, “I love the torture video. Jeez. I am in China. I’ll be in The US May. What the fuck, man?” - There is a strong focus on why a person’s name is redacted. The speaker presses: “Why is his name redacted? Why would your name be redacted if you're not a victim? Like, this is what's crazy about all this. Like, how come you redact some people and you don't redact other people? Like, what is this?” - The broader political critique follows, with the speaker asserting that “This is not good. None of this is good for this administration. It looks fucking terrible. It looks terrible. It looks terrible for Trump when he was saying that none of this was real.” The speaker emphasizes that “This is all a hoax” as claimed by Trump and argues against that framing: “This is not a hoax. Like, did you not know? Maybe he didn't know if you wanna be charitable, but this is definitely not a hoax.” - The speaker questions the credibility and transparency of disclosures: “And if you've got redacted people's names and these people aren't victims, you're not protecting the victims. So what are you doing?” This leads to a demand for more transparency: “And how come all this shit is not released?” Overall, the excerpt juxtaposes a reportedly circulated torture video linked to a named individual with concerns about redactions and victim protection, while interweaving political commentary about the administration and statements by Trump that claimed the matters were a hoax, contrasting those claims with the speaker’s insistence that the situation is not a hoax and warrants fuller release of information.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a text message where someone claims to give 50% of their income to their father. Speaker 1 is unsure of the meaning and suggests it could be circumstantial evidence. Speaker 0 questions why no one has asked the person involved for clarification. Speaker 1 admits they don't know and have nothing to say about it. Speaker 0 points out that the text message itself is evidence. Speaker 1 reluctantly agrees and ends the conversation, feeling like they were cut off by Speaker 0.

The transcript follows a chaotic exchange among multiple speakers discussing information sources, political narratives, and protests, with several recurring themes and claims. - There is a pattern of questioning information sources and personal actions. Speakers repeatedly ask, “Who the fuck is Jeremy? Where do I get my information? Why did I delete karaoke?” and “Who the fuck is Jonathan? Where does he get his information? Why did he delete karaoke?” indicating a concern with source credibility and content deletion. - A speaker (Speaker 2) describes a sense of purpose from sharing information, claiming that Wisconsin was the first state where “the evidence that I and my one of my associates, Chris, had put together for Peter, Wisconsin was the first state where it was actually presented, you know, under oath in, you know, a senate… Wisconsin Senate Committee on Election Integrity.” -Jeremy Oliver (Speaker 3) promotes alternative information channels, stating he has a YouTube page, a personal Facebook page, and that viewers can see “at the last protesting.” He frames mainstream media as unreliable, promising to “stream live and show exactly what's going on at the protest and really just support the people that are out there fighting for our First Amendment rights.” - Several participants discuss plans to act on protest grounds, including references to “Using other state capitals for practice dry runs” (Speaker 4) and “we’re basically ready to storm the capital with us in a couple of minutes” (Speaker 5). - There are assertions that “we’re all actors, but I wanna direct and act” (Speaker 6) and depictions of confrontations with others during protest or media interactions, including exchanges where people demand to speak with others about Mary Fenix/Fanning (Speaker 5). - A series of critical assertions target then-President Donald Trump and link various individuals and organizations to a network. A speaker states: “Donald Trump has no business being president,” followed by further claims about a coalition “super think tank of Biden, Harris, a couple intellectual figure behind them… Mike Flynn… and two economists,” including Simon Johnson, described as IMF chief economist, with English birth. - The conversation introduces the America Project and Patrick Byrne, claiming Flynn registered Flynn Intel Group from Stanley McChrystal’s home and associating McChrystal with the Defeat Disinfo Pack, an AI system that detects opposing viewpoints for Trump, and then shares those viewpoints to counter them. The system is said to target the Patriot movement. - There is a claim that the Flynn network included Ali Alexander and Michael Flynn, and that their aim was “to create instability as they're trying to carry out a color revolution,” listing criteria such as “a united and organized opposition,” “an ability quickly to drive home the point that voting results are falsified,” “compliant independent media,” and “capable of mobilizing tens of thousands or more demonstrators.” - A discussion on 2020 voting numbers is presented as a comparison to the midterms. It is stated that “2020, they reported 395,000 in-person voters on election day,” with debate about whether that figure was statewide or in Maricopa County. Projections speculate on how many Republicans intended to vote but did not cast ballots, with estimates ranging from around 150,000 to 700,000. - Additional claims connect groups and individuals to broader political finance and media ecosystems, including mentions of the US Agency for Global Media, prior Hillary Clinton and John Kerry involvement, and references to propaganda concerns. - Toward the end, the discussion touches upon Wisconsin politics again, with commentary on a state supreme court candidate and voter ID emphasis as a Democrat-leaning position contrary to expectations, followed by a shift into a more personal debate about a case involving a mother’s tragedy and media attention, ending with a tangential accusation of sympathy manipulation.

What's happening at this hotel? Reports indicate that individuals have been filming children at a nearby primary school. Don't touch me; I'm just trying to understand the situation. You're pushing me away, but I need answers. This is unacceptable. Illegals have been filming children here. Why are you preventing me from getting information? It's ironic that you're calling the police on me when there are serious allegations about people filming children just up the road. You have no evidence? There is evidence. Where is it? The community deserves answers about what's going on with the children.

The segment analyzes questions about an alleged text-message exchange between Tyler Robinson and his boyfriend regarding the Charlie Kirk shooting, presenting an “official transcript” of messages and highlighting apparent inconsistencies. Key lines cited include: "Robinson, drop what you are doing and look under my keyboard." "I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I'm going to take it." "I am still okay, my love, but I'm stuck in Orem for a little longer yet. Shouldn't be long until I can come home, but I gotta grab my rifle still." "I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age." "Robinson, I am. I'm sorry." "If I'm able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence." "Remember how I was engraving bullets?" "Delete this exchange." The piece notes questions about timelines, absence of time stamps, and camera footage, and quotes: "I'm gonna turn myself in willingly." "Since Trump got into office, my dad has been pretty diehard MAGA." It concludes that online observers question the narrative and possible discrepancies with authorities’ statements.

Speaker 0 presents text messages as authentic and not fabricated, stating that they are real and showing the date and time on their phone to prove it. They emphasize, “These are not made up text messages,” and insist the messages are real, noting they looked them up on their phone and that the date and time slide. They reference the phrase “Iron sharpens iron” and describe it as part of a dominance partnership. They explain that “Each hand washes the other” and that this is what Christ talked about as true partnership—reliant yet separate. They say that there is struggle and disagreement, but each side gets stronger and sharper because of the other, and that this is how they are describing their partnership. They reiterate that the messages are real and dismiss the idea of fabrication as “absolute nonsense.” They question what the point would be of making up messages, asking, “What would be the point of that?” Earlier in the message, they state they were very clear at the beginning of the entire thing: “no fakeness and no gayness.” They mention a hypothetical involving Charlie: if you didn’t get along with Charlie, you shouldn’t think you could simply drop a million dollars and rewrite history. They acknowledge that money might exist in such a situation, but assert that truth is on their side: “We have truth. That’s what’s on our side.” Overall, the speaker uses the presented text messages to illustrate a partnership described as mutual strengthening through interdependence, framed within a religious concept of true partnership. They underscore the authenticity of the messages, reject claims of fabrication, and contrast money with truth in their stance.

The speaker asserts: "starts within five seconds, maybe fifteen seconds tops of Charlie Kirk being assassinated" and "This is the CCTV footage we want." He asks, "why is it that you will not or you are refusing to release this video right here of fifteen seconds prior to Charlie Kirk or prior to what you did release?" He adds, "This dude is sprinting off the roof." He continues, "we went around the campus, and there's another camera." He notes there is "CCTV footage that literally shows the would have shown Tyler shooting at Charlie because the camera is literally right behind Charlie Kirk," and asks why that CCTV footage isn't released. He also asks, "What are on these CCTV cameras? Was there another shooter farther back that you don't wanna show us?" Finally, he asks, "What is this? This literally looks like a camera, a CCTV camera completely removed from the side of the building. Care to comment?"

The speaker claims that the biggest scandal was when their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees, saying there is no evidence. The speaker insists that it is all over the place and that it was bad for Biden. The other person explains that they can't put on things they can't verify. The speaker continues to assert that it has been verified and that they got caught. The other person denies knowing about it.

In the discussion, the speakers focus on forensic details and the handling of evidence surrounding the Charlie Kirk case and Tyler Robinson. Stefan Gardner is cited as stating that “dust samples alone will go a long way in ending speculation about Tyler Robinson fired the shot that killed Charlie Kirk,” arguing that the dust on the rocks will have a unique signature and will be on the killer’s clothes, gun, and shoes. The dust and soil samples are expected to show dust on the tread of shoes and soil where the gun was laid, and gun residue on the hands from handling the weapon. A forensic expert is quoted saying the roof where the shooting occurred was covered in pebbles and rocks, so dust signatures will be found on the shooter’s clothes, gun, and shoes, and that the car is also a major part of the evidence due to dust, soil, and gun residue on the steering wheel from the shooter’s hands. There is discussion about the sequence of events: the shooter allegedly disassembling or reassembling the gun, laying down a towel, firing, rolling up the gun, and leaving within about fourteen seconds to flee into the woods. The possibility is mentioned that the shooter could be identified by dust on the gear and by the car evidence. James Lee responds to the crowd, accusing others of focusing on dust samples while dismissing the need to first match the bullet to a gun, calling out the discussion as clownish. The conversation anticipates trial evidence including shoe DNA and other forensic marks, with a sense that official video footage might be suppressed or lost while experts testify about the evidence. The speakers criticize the FBI narrative, arguing that none of the FBI’s presented evidence has made sense, particularly challenging the 30-06 caliber discussion. They reference a prior demonstration with a 30-06 round fired into a setup of meat to simulate a neck wound, a steel plate, and a two-liter bottle, asserting that even the smallest 30-06 round would not produce the described result at the distance claimed, and suggesting Tyler Robinson would have been inside 150 yards. There is insistence that video footage exists and should be released to restore trust, including CCTV footage showing Tyler Robinson’s movements on campus—climbing onto the roof, taking the shot, and sprinting away. They call for CCTV footage and autopsy video to be released, along with video showing Tyler Robinson at the crime scene for four hours, arguing that the investigation would be more transparent if these materials were made public rather than kept from the public eye. The speakers express distrust of the FBI and other agencies, alleging deep state manipulation and claiming that video and DNA evidence could be forged or misrepresented, while demanding concrete, visible evidence in the form of footage and autopsy details.

The speaker claims there is more evidence that was doctored than what was previously disclosed, asserting that they uncovered additional manipulations and suggesting this may come out in the future. Despite winning the case, the speaker accuseS house managers of unconscionable conduct and due process violations affecting the defendant, and says the media should scrutinize this conduct as well. The speaker criticizes media coverage for being biased, stating that different stations show opposite weather forecasts at the same time and calling for reporting to be more like PBS rather than a TV news show with no journalistic integrity. They allege that prosecutors or government officials doctored evidence and that the media have not held them accountable. Specific allegations include a Twitter check-in with a date changed by a year to connect it to the case, which the speaker says is not a minor issue. They also claim that a check mark was added to make something appear as a validated account when it was not, and that there was no explanation given when this was uncovered. The speaker emphasizes that the described actions are not acceptable for prosecutors or government officials, and insists that the media should not let such conduct go unchallenged. They express frustration with what they view as biased media coverage.

Investigators identified an individual as the roommate of Robinson, who stated that his roommate referring to Robinson made a joke on Discord. He opened it and showed several messages to investigators and allowed investigators to take photos of the screen as each message was shown by Robinson's roommate. These photos consisted of various messages, including content of messages between the phone contact name Tyler with an emoji icon and Robinson's roommate's device. The content of these messages included messages affiliated with the contact Tyler stating a need to retrieve a rifle from a drop point. Discord said: "In a statement to NBC News, a Discord spokesperson said the company did identify an account belonging to the suspect, but said the messages mentioned in the news conference were not believed to have been sent on Discord." "The messages referenced in recent reporting about planning details do not appear to be Discord messages." These were communications between the roommate and a friend after the shooting, where the roommate was recounting the contents of a note the suspect had left elsewhere; "The messages aren't between Tyler, the alleged shooter, and his roommate." They were about Tyler, not from him. This seems to contradict the governor's claims; "The governor never mentioned that these communications were between the roommate and another person." The governor started by saying the roommate told the FBI that Tyler sent him a joke, and then goes on to detail how Tyler allegedly told the roommate to watch over the area where the gun was placed. But asking someone to watch the area where the gun was placed doesn't sound like a joke. It sounds like a deliberate order to assist with the cover up of an assassination. And now, the shooter's own grandmother says the FBI have the wrong man: "There is no way Robinson could be involved. ... I don't think he ever shot a gun to tell you the truth, ... He doesn't own any guns." Up until this point, we haven't heard from the father or any other family members. This raises a very serious issue because right now there are two pieces of evidence that the FBI and the governor of Utah is presenting to the public as evidence that Tyler is the shooter. One is that his father convinced Tyler to turn himself in, and two, the supposed Discord messages. With the Discord messages already being called into question, and since we haven't heard from his father, we shouldn't consider this case closed.

The conversation centers on email leaks and allegations of hacking connected to a political context. One speaker notes that “one hour later, WikiLeaks starts dropping my emails,” suggesting a link between the leaks and his own communications. The group references those emails being public and questions about what might have been coincidental, with lines like “Just get lost into the public. One could say that there might those things might not have been a coincidence” and mentions “those things” that may or may not have been intended to surface. Two days after the initial events, the speaker recounts that “the FBI contacted me, the first thing the agent said to me was, I don’t know if you’re aware, but your email account had might have been hacked.” He confirms awareness of the hacking, stating “I said yes,” and recalls a demand that he change how he is addressed, with references to being told, “From now on, you won’t call me your father,” and “I you will call me your father,” coupled with the assertion “You think you hide shit, don’t you? Just get lost.” The dialogue shifts to broader implications: other campaign officials’ emails were divulged earlier than October 7, and the speakers discuss uncertainty about what exactly had been compromised, noting “there was a document that appeared to come from my account” and realizing “they had the contents of my email account.” The last time one speaker talked to the FBI is mentioned in the context of these disclosures. A separate thread introduces media narratives, with a speaker asking, “Media is telling you the entire story is a hoax or fake news. But what does that even mean?” and stating, “I spent the last month investigating. So what exactly is Pizzagate? And are there any actual facts to support the story?” There is a sense of frustration about interpretation and evidence, captured in the line, “They’re hearing what they wanna hear. They’re not really listening to what I’m telling them.” The transcript ends with a brief aside from another speaker, “What’s that?” indicating confusion or a request for clarification, tied to the ongoing discussion about the emails, hacks, and the Pizzagate inquiry.

So everyone knows that these text messages are insanely fake, right? No one refers to their car as a vehicle, unless you're in law enforcement. Nobody says squad car. You would just say, Oh my God, I just saw a cop. No 22 year old refers to their parent as my old man. I left the rifle wrapped in a towel. Nobody would write step by step. And when he talks about the engravings, he says, mostly a big meme. You gotta read these texts for yourself, because nobody talks like this. Nobody texts like this, and no young person uses the words vehicle, drop point. This is just way too convenient.