TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

"Vigilante justice is a completely inappropriate response to the rioting in the street. There is no justification for what happened in Kenosha. Obviously. And vigilante justice is a crime and and should be punished as a crime." "Obviously. In Kenosha this week, tragically, we saw a 17 year old, young man with an AR 15 walk into the protest and kill two protesters, murder them. Back to Kenosha, we have heard crickets from this White House on the right wing 17 year old man who murdered two protesters." The speakers frame the events as vigilante violence and criticize the White House's reaction to the Kenosha incident.

This type of violence is not okay and is becoming too common. It doesn't matter which side, party, or person it's directed at; it has to stop. We have a responsibility to be better.

The discussion centers on Charlie Kirk and the handling of his death. The speakers are uncertain about the official account and call for a truly rigorous and honest federal investigation. Specific points raised include: - A claim that Canada said Egyptian-registered aircraft followed Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, around for years in various places; the speaker asserts this is factually true and notes it is a very strange data point, though its meaning is unclear. - A claim that Erika Kirk’s event had a disproportionately large number of foreign-registered cell phones, which is also stated as true. - The speakers emphasize that the FBI has a moral and legal obligation to investigate openly and to consider all possibilities, applying the same process as in science, journalism, and law enforcement. They express a lack of confidence in the FBI and the officials who run it, and argue that honesty and a coherent narrative are needed to restore public trust. - Foreknowledge of the incident is discussed: posts on X allegedly predicted that Charlie Kirk would be killed on the date of the college event in Utah. The question is raised about whether those posts were just guessing and whether those involved have been interviewed by the FBI to determine how they knew what they knew. - The speakers compare the investigation to other events, suggesting that if they investigated, they would examine who publicly posted foreknowledge and seek detailed explanations: who they spoke to, what they know, and how to verify it. - There is a request for an explanation of how the killer transformed into a radical, violent actor, with a note that the speaker does not automatically endorse trans ideologies but wants to understand the radicalization process. - The speakers discuss Candace Owens’ role: the controversy and turmoil surrounding her claims, and the idea that those in authority are responsible for the investigation, not individuals like Candace or podcasters. - A concluding sentiment expresses greater trust in Candace Owens’ intent than in the average DOJ official, framing Candace’s presence as filling a vacuum left by authorities, while insisting that the people in charge must restore confidence through honest reporting and a plausible narrative.

Speaker 0: When I was actually walking out here, somebody sent me a photo of a CNN headline about what happened in Minneapolis. And this is the headline. I'm just gonna read it. Outrage after ICE officer kills US citizen in Minneapolis. Well, that's one way to put it, and that is the way that many people in the corporate media have put this attack over the last twenty four hours. And I say attack very, very intentionally because this was an attack on federal law enforcement. This was an attack on law and order. This was an attack on the American people. The way that the media by and large has reported this story has been an absolute disgrace and it puts our law enforcement officers at risk every single day. What that headline leaves out is the fact that that very off ICE officer nearly had his life ended, dragged by a car six months ago, thirty three stitches in his legs. So you think maybe he's a little bit sensitive about somebody ramming him with an automobile? What that headline leaves out is that that woman was there to interfere with a legitimate law enforcement operation in The United States Of America. What that headline leaves out is that that woman has is part of a broader left wing network to attack, to docks, to assault, and to make it impossible for our ICE officers to do their job. If the media wants to tell the truth, they ought to tell the truth that a group of left wing radicals have been working tirelessly, sometimes using domestic terror techniques to try to make it impossible for the president of The United States to do what the American people elected him to do, which is enforce our immigration laws. The president stands with ICE. I stand with ICE. We stand with all of our law enforcement officers. And part of that is recognizing that you people in the media, not everybody in this room, but many people in this room have been lying about this attack. She was trying to ram this guy with his with her car. He shot back. He defended himself. He's already been seriously wounded in law enforcement operations before, and everybody who's been repeating the lie that this is some innocent woman who was out for a drive in Minneapolis when a law enforcement officer shot at her, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Every single one of you. Questions? Thank you, mister Vice

We are witnessing modern-day lynchings that are unjustly accepted as justice. If we truly believe in equality, it shouldn't be permissible for someone to be killed simply for being black, brown, or anything other than a white male. This troubling trend resembles the racial injustices of the 1950s, where perpetrators often escape accountability for their actions against marginalized communities. We face serious issues in this country related to race, and if we don't address them, they will continue to grow and cause harm.

This situation is absurd. Why has it come to this? I shared something that he posted, yet I'm the one being arrested. It doesn't make sense that I'm in cuffs while he isn't. There seems to be anxiety caused by social media posts, but I don’t understand why I'm being targeted.

Why are we cheering for someone getting shot? He's dead. Like, no matter what political beliefs are, should not be cheering that someone got shot. He has a family. We do. We I value everyone's beliefs, but we should not be cheering as a class that someone got shot. He has a family. Yes. And who shot them? A transgender person. Oh. Oh. Oh. So that's what it is. Yes. Five males. It doesn't matter. You should not be cheering that someone got shot. Yes. You should not be cheering that someone got shot. Yeah. He's still, like, attacking you guys don't care what other people got.

"Talk to me about the environment in which a shooting like this happens." "we don't know any of full details of this. We don't know if this was the supporter shooting their gun off in celebration or so. We have no idea about this." "He's been one of the most divisive, especially divisive, figures in this who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups." "I always go back to hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions." "And I think that's the environment we're in, that people just you can't stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place." "And that's the unfortunate environment we're in."

Speaker 0: Listen to this clip, Hannah, of what I said that was so dangerous and controversial. K. Keen Jeffries, a progressive congressman, literally tweeted, while the trial was going on, lock up Kyle Rittenhouse and throw away the key. And he's the same guy that rails against mass incarceration, and I agree with him on some of it. But now, before the trial's even over, they're calling for this guy to be locked up and throw away the key. Like, they've already reached their conclusion. Speaker 1: No. Didn't give him a fair shake. Speaker 0: It's a very ... And they lied about it being a white supremacy thing when it's a white dude that shot three other white people. It's the entire thing is bizarre and it's Out of self defense. Speaker 1: Right. Yes. Speaker 0: In my opinion. Speaker 1: That's most important. Speaker 0: The truth is he defended himself; he wasn't some mass shooter white supremacist, and he should be acquitted. Do you feel bullied? Speaker 1: I I don't. And honestly, I think that was the most milquetoast explanation of everything that went down.

This was not a race thing or a political thing. It was a human being thing. This person made a bad choice and affected both his family and my family forever. His brother was there who tried to save him, and he died in his arms. If you weren't there, please don't spread rumors.

It would be unfortunate if people reported Mike Harlow for his recent comments perceived as transphobic on Twitter. While not everyone who speaks against trans individuals is necessarily transphobic, Harlow's recent behavior has raised concerns. Just suggesting that reporting him could be a consequence of his actions.

Which tweet are we discussing? The one referring to it as a modern-day lynching? The situation is still developing, and I have serious concerns about it.

My sympathy to Charlie Kirk's family and to Charlie Kirk who obviously is, you know, become a target for somebody. I don't know whether it's political violence because I don't know who did it. I know they seem to have somebody in custody. But I will say that political violence unfortunately has been ratcheting up in this country. We saw the shootings, the killings in Minnesota. We've seen other political violence occur in other states, and I I would just say it's gotta stop. And I think there are people who are fomenting it in this country. I think the president's rhetoric often foments it. We've seen the January 6 rioters who clearly, you know, have tripped a new era of political violence.

I released a statement yesterday regarding the public hanging comment, and I stand by that statement. The statement is available for review. I'm not going to expand on why I said it, what I meant by it, or why people in the state should not see it as offensive. I will not be commenting on whether it evokes Mississippi's history of lynchings or whether it should be viewed with a negative connotation. That statement is all I am going to say about the issue, and I will not be answering any further questions.

Speaker 0 expresses concern about the administration’s response to the incident, noting that very quickly, very high up people, including Christine Ohm, Donald Trump himself, and Shady Vance, started calling the killed woman a domestic terrorist and saying she deserved it. The speaker argues that when a relatively young mother of three is killed by a law enforcement officer, government officials should say this was a tragedy, that they will conduct an investigation, and they will see what happened, instead of “running cover for the officer,” because such conduct erodes public trust. The speaker emphasizes that many things about the response freaked people out and describes it as disturbing to have people calling the woman a domestic terrorist. The question is raised: “What the fuck does that even mean?” The speaker notes that even if she did try to run the officer over, it’s not terrorism, and questions what people are talking about when they use that label. There is a critique of how words like “terrorist” are used loosely and how they have “lost meaning,” with the speaker asserting that this is the kind of rhetoric that is used to paint people in certain ways. The speaker draws a comparison, suggesting that labeling someone a terrorist resembles tactics used against Palestinians, where everyone is painted as a terrorist. The rapid labeling is described as part of a broader pattern of invoking terrorism to justify actions or narratives. The speaker concludes with a conditional reflection: if someone is a terrorist, then “actually anything goes,” signaling a perception that the label is being used to bypass normal standards or accountability.

I'm glad Trump is safe and condemn political violence. People believed media's extreme claims about Trump, leading to violence. Media should reflect on their role in spreading fear and misinformation.

"Most murders in The US never become national news." "This one's garnered attention for a couple of reasons." "First and foremost, the recent release of that gruesome video." "Second, the energy from pro Trump activists." "They picked up on this video from local news and ran with it." "In this case, it is Trump aligned influencers who are posting up a storm about this case on social media." "Over the weekend, Elon Musk, Charlie Kirk, other Trump figures succeeded in making this senseless death a symbol of big city crime." "We heard president Trump asked about it yesterday when he was heading home from New York City." "He didn't seem to know much about it." "He said he would get briefed." "And then today, Trump did know all about it." "That's exactly what has happened here."

"As a nurse, I am disgusted by the amount of health care professionals that I see making light of mocking and justifying yesterday's tragedy." "As a medical professional, I treat everyone, every with the most respect regardless of your beliefs, regardless of your background. You are a human life first and that is how I treat all of my patients and that is how we should treat everyone." "It is appalling. It is an outrage." "I am disgusted and I just cannot believe that we are here now in this state, in this country, that we are justifying hate crimes on people because of their beliefs." "But the fact that I see medical professionals making fun of and justifying an innocent man being taken out in front of thousands of people watching livestream of the event in front of his children and his wife is unforgivable and disgusting."

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.

I am shocked by the inhumanity of an influencer with over 2,000,000 followers who wished for a better aim to harm the president. This behavior is vile and unacceptable. Anyone supporting this influencer should be called out. We would never wish harm on any leader, and I, along with many others, condemn this sick individual and urge them to seek help.

The speaker addresses accusations against the Tate brothers, stating they are disturbing and for the court to handle. The speaker clarifies that past comments about the Tates referred to their social media presence and potential political involvement in the UK, specifically their vocal opposition to certain things. The speaker emphasizes a separation between admiring their social media presence and condoning the serious accusations against them, including human trafficking and rape. As a lawyer, the speaker refrains from commenting on the specifics of the case but asserts that they do not condone the alleged behavior.

Mister Musk's recent Twitter activity sparked a discussion on freedom of speech. While we also value this freedom, we acknowledge the need to address illegal content online.

Speaker 0: Social media is wildly out of control and there’s too much clickbait in this country. One of the things I highlighted in Congress in my testimony last week is that if we wanna protect our youth, we gotta get more involved in social media and online platforms because that’s where the folks, the assassins of this world get radicalized. That’s where they’re the long-lived afters in general. And so we have to get after that problem set, and I asked for Congress to help in doing so. But speaking of Charlie Kirk, was a very dear friend of mine, and then I was tasked with leading the nationwide manhunt to find the perpetrators involved, of course, we were gonna use every resource we have to find every single person involved, and the investigation's still ongoing. But we, as one of the pillars of my leadership here at the FBI, is transparency. We've produced more documents to Congress than my last two predecessors combined by twofold. Just to put it in perspective. So when we take our investigations out to the streets, I have the same ethos. And this is how we got Charlie Kirk's assassin, alleged assassin, so fast. The Boston Marathon bomber, which happened in Downtown Boston during the Boston Marathon took five days, and there was a police officer who was killed in that manhunt. Luigi Mangione, who allegedly murdered an individual, the CEO of the health care company, in Downtown Manhattan in broad daylight took five days to find him. Our investigation is very much ongoing. But we've also Armstrong in an unusual thing put out publicly more information as to what we found because of it is of such public importance. The flip side of that is the social media people get involved and they come run with their crazy conspiracy theories because it makes them money. It gives them clickbait. And I don't work for them, and I don't respond to them. My duty is the American people. If there was anyone else involved in Charlie Kirk's murder, you can look at our record. We'll find them, and we'll...

Addressing chatter about a text chain released by Candace Owens, the screen grab is authentic. He didn’t share publicly because it was private and he didn’t want to betray a friend's trust, but he shared it with some in government since it happened quickly. It took thirty three hours for authorities to get their suspect, and in the first moments they wanted no stone unturned. He says, 'we want justice for Charlie more than anybody else, and no stone unturned.' He notes, 'it was not mine to share publicly.' 'It's been so frustrating to have people blow up about this,' and explains, 'I am an eyewitness to events, and they said, don't comment on things because anything you say can mess that up. I don't want to mess up any trial for the person who did this.'

It's unfortunate another child's bad choice will affect him for life. The speaker has compassion for every human being. This is not a race issue, nor a black and white issue. The speaker does not want the situation politicized. The speaker does not appreciate online remarks from people who weren't present during the event.