TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Jesse on fire says Candice Owens "dropped an absolute thermonuclear bomb that is going to set the Internet on fire" and warns intelligence agencies and state actors. He recalls Andrew Breitbart's claim that he had information "that was going to be absolutely the end of John Podesta" and planned to release it around "March 13." If what she's saying is accurate, "a potential Podesta situation." The text Candace shares asserts: "Tyler Robinson is not The entire narrative that was placed in the media about him having been Susan. Is completely fictional, as are many other aspects of what we have been told." "Tyler has never once expressed a suicidal thought." "The federal government is lying about absolutely everything other than the fact that the gun is his." "Tyler Robinson did not author those Discord messages." Candace says the media narrative that Tyler is suicidal is not true.

The speaker vents about Candace Owens becoming the focal point of a fierce, circular attack from people who supposedly defend free speech. He describes the scene as a firing squad of individuals who built their public identities on defending speech, yet now rush to “push people out of the way,” attack Owens, and demand she be silenced or erased. He emphasizes the speed, ferocity, and hypocrisy of the reactions, noting that those who champion speech and dissent are now labeling Owens as crossing a line that must be punished. He stresses that there is a figurative (and sometimes explicit) bounty on Owens, warning that coming after her endangers people and signals a broader, dangerous trend. He points to Owens’s prominence as a disruptor who bypassed traditional gatekeepers—“what she represents” is independence and the end of permission-based relevance. Owens’s direct relationship with her audience, he argues, terrifies established institutions and gatekeepers who cannot throttle her platform. The speaker condemns the shift from defending free expression to calling for deplatforming when Owens surpasses rivals in reach, influence, and commercial impact. He accuses the critics of jealousy, commercial self-interest, and intimidation, rather than genuine concern for standards or safety. He asserts that the same people who once defended speech now call for suppression when it serves their own interests, and he suggests this is driven by power and censorship-loving impulses. He recalls his own stance on Owens’s controversial remarks about Brigitte Macron, acknowledging concern about defamation but insisting he never urged silencing her; he warned about legal risks but still defended her right to speak. He argues that the current backlash is not about disagreement but exclusion, labeling, and isolation—a strategy to turn Owens into a pariah. The speaker asserts that Owens’s influence demonstrates how a single, authentic voice can bypass institutions and speak directly to millions, provoking panic in those who built systems around control. He warns that this machinery does not distinguish between allies; once activated, it can target anyone who deviates from the “new approved line.” He accuses some critics of being paid to push deplatforming and of using the pretext of standards, safety, or responsibility to mask envy and loss of control. He frames the issue as existential: is opinion allowed to breathe in the digital public square, or will dissent be tolerated only when it is small? He argues that free speech is not about agreement but about allowance and expansion, trusting that truth will emerge through conflict. He urges consistency: defend the right to speak for all, even those you disagree with, and resist turning this into a partisan battle. The video closes with a rallying call: this is bigger than Candace Owens; it’s about whether we will stand by the principle of free expression. He thanks viewers and asks for engagement and dialogue, emphasizing that the moment is about defending speech itself, not winning a feud.

Candace Owens puts "the higher ups at Turning Point executives on blast" and challenges them to publicly release "a statement about her explosive statement regarding Charlie Kirk's position on Israel." She cites: "About forty eight hours prior to his death, Charlie Kirk notified Turning Point USA, Jewish donors, and a rabbi that he had no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause outright." She asks: "Did he express that?" and "did he, just forty eight hours later, conveniently catch a bullet to the throat before our onstage reunion could happen? It's a yes or a no." "This changes fucking everything." The clip denounces "trans slop trans shooter agenda" as "they're fucking trash" and states "Israel had no reason to want Charlie Kirk dead." It adds: "only 24% of Americans actually are pro Israel at this point. That's it. 24%. Yet 98% of our government is pro Israel." It ends with "Bukele Two Point O, and we got a fucking bush light wrapped in shit."

Hi. I'm Rachel, and my name is currently first on a website claiming to expose Charlie Kirk's murderers. In the last two days I've been getting messages nonstop, claiming to know where I live and saying they're coming for me. I said I was terrified to think of how far right fans of Kirk aching for more violence could turn this into a radicalizing moment. That analysis came from the fact that I am an experienced journalist who has extensively covered right wing extremism. That's also why, by the way, a lot of people hate me and wanna shut me up. And suddenly, I was, like, the face of people Charlie Kirk's murder, even though that literally never happened. And for what? They're just proving me right. I just really hope no one makes good on these threats because I now have to live as if they might.

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

This transcript presents a heated claim about Candace Owens, Charlie Kirk, and Israel, centered on Turning Point USA leadership. It opens with "This just changed everything. Holy shit. Wake up America. Shit's getting crazy." Owens is said to "put the higher ups at Turning Point executives on blast" and to "challenge them to publicly release a statement about her explosive statement regarding Charlie Kirk's position on Israel." She quotes: "About forty eight hours prior to his death, Charlie Kirk notified Turning Point USA, Jewish donors, and a rabbi that he had no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause outright." She asks: "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 demands: "I want you to literally answer what I have just said. It either happened or it didn't." The claim: "Forty eight hours later... a bullet to the throat" and "This changes fucking everything." The piece also attacks "trans slop trans shooter agenda" and "slop media," cites "24% of Americans" pro-Israel vs "98% of our government" pro-Israel, and ends with "Bukele Two Point O" and "a bush light wrapped in shit."

Candace Owens claims Netanyahu lied about the letter Charlie Kirk wrote to him, saying Netanyahu read a letter on US national television 'about how much Charlie loved Israel,' but Owens says 'that's not what the letter said.' Owens, a close friend of Charlie Kirk, says Netanyahu needs to release that full letter: 'Let Charlie speak for himself. Don't put fake words in his mouth.' She questions why 'you're the leader of a nation who's at war with seven countries halfway across the world, and you're booking a prime time slot on US TV airwaves to come and lie about Charlie one day after this tragedy? What is going here?' Noting that Charlie was 'at war with his donors over the question of Israel and the war in Iran,' she adds this was heating up and Charlie was fearing for his life. She concludes: 'Do not listen to people who say stop asking questions because they do not have your best interests at heart, they definitely don't have Charlie's best interests at heart, and they don't want you to find out the truth.'

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.

Aladdin and another participant discuss a string of controversial claims and conspiracy theories centered around Candace Owens and her husband, interwoven with personal updates and on-the-ground reporting plans. Aladdin introduces the topic by noting a disagreement with Zanny and invites Candace to continue, while also acknowledging support for a post in the nest. The conversation then moves to Candace Owens and her husband, described as a “MI5 asset” (a claim linked to his alleged background and funding). Speaker 1 identifies himself as a former intelligence officer who is currently in Ukraine, documenting the war to provide factual on-the-ground reporting and planning to visit Israel, Palestine, and Iraq to document events. He mentions a GoFundMe-style pin post on his profile for donations to his journey and stresses his aim to deliver factual reporting without spin. The discussion shifts to Candace Owens, whom Speaker 1 calls an “absolute fraud.” He cites “multiple indications back in 2022” related to Owens’s husband and references a firm he allegedly worked with, comparing it to a Wall Street-like operation in England. Specific firms mentioned include Parley or Glorify, and Avenger Capital Fund, suggesting that Owens’s husband is heavily funded by Jewish firms. When Owens speaks publicly, Speaker 1 argues, it appears to be designed to reveal a hidden network, prompting Aladdin to suggest peeling back layers of her narrative. The consensus among the participants is that Owens has become a prominent conspiracy disseminator who has shifted focus over time. The conversation traces Owens’s move from reporting about Charlies Kirk’s personal guard to broader conspiracies, expressing skepticism about the authenticity of texts Owens released between herself and Charlie Kirk. They describe those messages as not proving anything substantial about an assassination plot, though they debate their authenticity. The group notes Owens’s pattern of jumping between conspiracies without credible evidence, labeling some of her content as vile. Speaker 1 reveals that he knows Owens’s husband and alleges their marriage was arranged for clout, comparing the dynamic to a modern version of a high-profile “arranged marriage.” The discussion turns personal as Speaker 1, who grew up in Iraq, shares a harsh view toward Palestinians, calling them “parasites” and characterizing Palestinian behavior as spreading “cancer with their victimhood.” This remark is cited as part of the broader atmosphere of inflammatory rhetoric surrounding Owens and related narratives. Despite expressions of support for America, Speaker 1 emphasizes his Ukraine mission and reiterates his invitation for donations to fund his reporting. Toward the end, the group veers into light banter about a coin-toss game, humorously referencing heads for soap and tails for a lampshade, then moving through a quick aside about quarters and college games before returning to the ongoing discussion.

The video centers on Candace Owens and Turning Point USA, with the speaker claiming Owens 'puts the higher ups at Turning Point executives on blast' and challenges them to publicly release a statement about 'her explosive statement regarding Charlie Kirk's position on Israel.' It highlights this claim: '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.' The speaker presses, '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 notes Nick Fuentes saying, 'there was no signs Israel had no reason to want Charlie Kirk dead.' The rant attacks media figures as 'slop media' and declares 'trans slop trans shooter agenda' as 'trash,' concluding with claims that '24% of Americans' are pro Israel while '98% of our government is pro Israel,' and referencing 'Bukele Two Point O.'

Speaker describes sending a life insurance policy of sorts—a package of text messages, emails, private communications, videos, and private legal documents—to trusted people so that, if anything happens to him, they will know exactly who it is that has been making my life a living hell over the past couple of years. He says those behind it are trying to bankrupt me and my family, threatening us to sue us. He notes Everything that Kanye said was so real. He says Just leave me alone. Let me say what I believe, and you say what you believe. Fight fair. He claims he has explicit permission to release it all, detonate it all, expose all of these people in politics and in the movement who behave like this behind the scenes. It's necessary. He says to send everything around to about eight people that you trust and that he sent it to journalists, text messages, screenshots to people ranging from Max Blumenthal to Andrew Tate.

Speaker says he sent around a "life insurance policy of sorts"—a package filled with text messages, emails, private communications, videos, and private legal documents—to people he trusts, so if anything happens to me, you guys will know exactly who it is that has been making my life a living hell over the past couple of years. "People that are trying to bankrupt me, trying to bankrupt me and my family, that are threatening us to sue us." "Everything that Kanye said was so real." He adds, "man, Kanye was right. He was really saying something about what it takes to leave, you know, to fight for custody of your own soul. Just leave me alone. Let me say what I believe, and you say what you believe. Fight fair." "Why do you always have to make this threat to bankrupt people?" He says those people, if anything happens to me, have my explicit permission to release it all, detonate it all, expose all of these people in politics and in the movement who behave like this behind the scenes. It's necessary. He urges every person with a platform who is scared to "send everything around to about eight people that you trust." He concludes, "And, I mean, I I've ranged it. I sent it to journalists, text messages, screenshots to people ranging from Max Blumenthal to Andrew Tate. They won't know where it's coming from."

Candice says she has zero fucks left to give and is determined to find out who killed Charlie Kirk, claiming she’s blowing holes in the Fed story, dropping receipts. She argues the case centers on an Israel connection, including insinuations against Netanyahu—'Be be eating at Satan Yahoo'—and notes that the same day they killed Charlie Kirk they shut down the vote to release all the Epstein files. She recalls Epstein was an agent of Mossad and that Turning Point donors pulled out, millions of dollars pulling it out because they didn't like Charlie had Dave Smith and Tucker Carlson asking questions about Israel and all the evil shit Israel does. There are four drones now confirmed in the air, and she urges, 'Everybody upload that footage that you have.' Candice vows to uncover the truth: Candice is gonna get to the bottom of it. Long live this beautiful republic.

I hate drama. I hate influencer drama. I hate Internet drama. I hate the theatrics of it. And so I want to tell you something. The only reason that I'm going up against Crenshaw is I am sick and tired of watching government officials and people in high places try to silence and bully regular American citizens. I'm sick of saying it. Somebody's gotta stand up to this shit. It might as well be me. It might as well be me. On 12/09/2025, I received a legal demand letter from lawyers representing congressman Dan Crenshaw. They are threatening to sue me for defamation because of comments I made on my podcast about a message that he sent me. So this all transpired from a conversation that I had with Tulsi Gabbard. And I was concerned... Although I didn't mention his name in the interview... I wanted to know how a newer congressman can afford to hire a mainstream DJ, Steve Aoki, to spin at his fortieth birthday party. I didn't just make this up. Somebody sent me the invitation that he had sent out to everybody for his fortieth birthday. And so that's where I got this from. Anyways, here's the clip with Tulsi. Is there any direct money? I mean, know, you see all these people you see all these people show up in Congress, the Senate, the cabinet, whatever, and, you know, not wealthy. Yeah. Speaker 1: I don't have firsthand experience in this. I have often questioned the same thing. I know a big factor is the insider trading that goes on in Congress. And again, some people will say, well, like, hey, I didn't know anything about this. I'm just making investments for my family or my wife or my husband is making investments. I don't know anything about what's going on. Maybe they're being honest, maybe they're not. But the reality is you're in a position where you're making decisions, either in committee or on the House floor, that influence our markets, that influence the outcomes of certain industries, either causing some to tank or others to skyrocket. And the mere perception of insider trading shouldn't exist. This is legislation, again, I introduced in Congress years ago. No member of Congress should be allowed to do any trading of any stocks, neither should their spouse, neither should their senior staff. Period. These are the people who have access to proprietary private information that's not open to everybody in the public, or certainly before it becomes public. And the possibility of the abuse of power in trading on that information should not exist. It's interesting because as we're seeing there are some members of Congress who say that share my view on that, but who are continuing to trade stocks themselves. The Senate just passed, I think out of committee, first step legislation that would reflect similar to banning members and their spouses. We'll see where it goes. In the Senate we've heard a lot of talk coming from leaders from both parties, but no action has been taken. That to me is the most obvious way that people are going from being elected and having no money and you make, what, dollars $160 a year or whatever the salary is now to literally becoming multimillionaires. That is the most obvious way. There are kind of stringent requirements of financial reporting that every member has to do certainly at least once a year, more often if you are actively trading in stocks. But it I think it would be a little hard, not impossible, but a little hard if somebody's just coming and bringing you a sack of cash. Speaker 0: So after the conversation with Tulsi, that's when I got the text or the message on Instagram from congressman Crenshaw that I find threatening, telling me he spoke with his boys at six. Here's a screenshot. Hey, Sean. You have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem with me or have questions about how I'm getting rich. Some of my boys at six told me about your indirect swipe at me. Some of my beliefs are based on trendy narratives instead of facts. And just so you know, I mean, Dan does have a history of threatening people. Once again, here is Dan threatening to kill Tucker Carlson. And then, again, he reaffirms that he's not joking. Speaker 2: Have you ever met Tucker? Speaker 0: We've talked a lot. He's the worst person. Okay. So I get the message. I take it is extremely threatening. It is a tier one unit, the best, most effective tier one unit in the world, deadliest unit. But I don't do anything. I move on. And then a little over a year later, I'm interviewing, oh, a member from SEAL Team six. Maybe he's one of Dan's boys at six. So he brought up the fact that he had asked a congressman with an eye patch, didn't wanna mention his name, to help him with his book debacle. He received no aid. I filled in the blank. I said, oh, you must be talking about congressman Crenshaw. Let me share my experience with you, my interactions with congressman Crenshaw. So I shared him. I told him about the Instagram message, and I told him that I found that threatening. And then I asked Matt if he was one of Dan's boys at six, Maybe he was here to come beat me up. Matt assured me he wasn't. Here's the clip. Speaker 2: I'll give you another example. In the height of my my issues, I contacted a former SEAL. I won't name names, but he has an eye patch, And he's a congressman out of a state You Speaker 0: mean Dan Crenshaw? Speaker 2: I'm not naming names. Speaker 0: Another one of my Speaker 2: favorite Sir, here's my situation. You know, Dan? Speaker 0: Dan actually sent me a message. I should fucking read this to you. But, basically, he tells me I brought something up about him, and I never even met I gave him the courtesy of not even mentioning his fucking name. It was about his birthday party where he hired Steve Aoki to to DJ his birthday. I mean, that can't be fucking cheap. Right? Especially on a congressman's salary. And I brought that up. And Dan sends me a message that says his boys over at six are really upset with me that I brought that up, and they're gonna they might come beat me up. Speaker 2: Boys at six. Speaker 0: His boys over at six. Speaker 2: Well, to infer he's got I don't know why congressman would be Speaker 0: threatening me with seal team six, but I'm still fucking waiting. This is actually a couple years This Speaker 2: is threatened quite a Speaker 0: have not had my ass kicked by a couple of guys over at six. But Dan Crunchy he fits with all these fucking people you're talking about. Speaker 2: So I called him. Right? He's a sitting congressman. He's a former officer. And drum roll, please, he was getting ready to release his book. So I call him up. I get a conversation with him. I said, sir, here's my situation. I hired an attorney. The attorney gave me bad advice. Book was published. I've given up attorney client privilege, cooperated everything I can to to fix this. They've still come after me. We can get into all the the other stuff that I'm dealing with. I said, sir, can you help me out with this? He's like, well, you know, I'm I'm about ready to publish my book, and I'm I'm not getting it reviewed. I'm like, well, sir, same same letter of the law that they came after me for failure to seek prepublication review. I didn't get prepublication review because my lawyer told me I didn't have to, and he could do it. Like, in your case, you know you have to get reviewed. I'm here telling you, confirming you have to get reviewed or the government's gonna come after you. He's like, yeah. No. But I'm not gonna write anything classified in my book. I'm like, there's nothing classified in my book. They they said there was. They went through it. They said, nope. There's nothing classified in it. You just failed to seek review. I'm like, so if I only thing I failed to do was seek review, you're willingly going around that obligation, and you don't give a shit. He's like, yeah. But I'm not gonna write about anything classified in my book. That was his answer. Never talked to him again. So he published his book. No review. Nothing's happened. He's kept his money. He's a sitting congressman. I got a payment plan. So so to say I've been alone So Speaker 0: I guess I guess you're not one of Dan's boys over at six. Speaker 2: That's kinda Definitely not Dave Boys at six. That's a pretty ridiculous statement if I've ever heard one.

Speaker 0 describes Candace Owens with highly inflammatory language, calling her an evil scumbag and a degenerate cunt. He accuses her of burning everything down and gloating while she does it, and claims she has security, though not the same level as others. He asserts that she lies about security and that her actions harm others, while conservatives who criticize her lack “balls” to call her out. He acknowledges that others have begun messaging him in support of criticizing Owens, but he dismisses credit for any such actions he didn’t claim. Speaker 0 asserts that Owens is hypocritical and hypocritically claims she loves Charlie Kirk while allegedly destroying what he built. He states he has bullets fired at his property and has to live in the middle of nowhere, with strangers approaching his Maryland home and residents being beaten when attempting to live there. He contends that Owens does not live the way she portrays, and that she is “burning everything down” and is evil. He claims the conservative movement is fractured and suggests Republicans are on track to lose the midterms, asserting that they were trending in a different direction until Charlie Kirk was murdered, calling it “the most effective political assassination in history.” Speaker 0 further asserts that Owens has turned Turning Point into “the perpetrators of the crime that was against them” and says he is not paid by any of these groups, has no special ties to Turning Point USA, and was not invited to their event. He contends that he does not want to participate with them and feels that conservative media are cowardly for not standing up to Owens. He mentions Megyn Kelly, appreciating her kind words but calling the situation pathetic bullshit. He emphasizes that no one is paying him, there is no Russia or Israel involvement, and he is simply risking his life by speaking out. Speaker 0 reiterates his frustration at Owens being placed in a thumbnail on her piece and calls her a “fucking cunt.” He insists that Owens benefited from the situation, and that she “killed Charlie” with her actions, claiming, “No one benefited more than her.” The exchange includes Speaker 1 confirming disbelief that Owens included him in the thumbnail and echoing the sentiment that she didn’t fly or act consistently with her claimed security.

"Charlie Kirk's assassination has deleted evidence that Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson haven't mentioned once." "This guy told the cops to arrest him so the shooter could have more time to get away." "This guy was deployed for 09/11, deployed against Obama, for George Bush, and personally worked with senators and US congressmen." "And he personally admitted it, and they wiped everything, but I downloaded it just before. George Zinn," "These donors like Manafort, Berman, Ronald Weiser, they manipulate elections, create countries, and have personally admitted to taking money from all of these countries." "Zinn, the patsy, is an example of an actor they use." "I have a full twenty seven minute video going over exactly what happened, why people like Candace Owens might be lying to you, and the archive podcast link in bio."

It's stressful dealing with people online who say they want to kill me and desecrate my corpse. I think it's an overblown reaction, like calling me a Nazi. It's like they think I'm Hitler and should be assassinated. Remember that guy who tried to kill Trump? His online footprint was professionally scrubbed. I doubt corporations like BlackRock are directly ordering assassinations, but individuals might see it as beneficial. That kid at the Trump rally with the rangefinder raises a lot of questions. CNN streamed it live, which was unusual. The Secret Service said the roof was too sloped for people, yet snipers were on a steeper roof. If it was a coordinated hit, someone shoots Trump, then they shoot the kid, and it's all wrapped up. He's basically a suicide assassin. Something radicalized him. And how did he have five phones and no cutlery in his house? The whole thing is insane.

The transcript centers on a long-form discussion of the Epstein case, the alleged “deep state,” FOIA operations, and political maneuvering around Trump, with frequent calls to aggressively release and pursue Epstein-related documents and other investigations. The speakers assert that the FOIA department is being used to shield deep-state ties and that many federal offices are filled with anti-Trump figures who have prevented full disclosure. - Epstein files and the role of the deep state - The speakers claim the Epstein files are being selectively redacted by FOIA departments to conceal deep-state connections. They state that FOIA personnel are controlled by deep-state actors and that Epstein’s case involves a “fleet of aircraft” and operations linked to major power centers. They argue Epstein’s activities connect to money laundering, information laundering, and a broader set of deep-state assets and operations. - They propose a remedy: appoint Tom Fitton as special counsel on the Epstein files, arguing he “knows how FOIA really works,” understands key personnel, and has litigated Epstein-related cases for years. They assert this would restore public confidence and expedite the exposure of Democratic ties and other actors alleged to be involved. - They advocate for Trump to have executive-privilege-style powers to declassify and release Epstein materials, suggesting a broad interpretation of “Epstein file law” that would allow him to disclose or appoint an ombudsman with power to release materials at will. They emphasize the need to disclose Democratic ties and to hold press conferences when releasing documents, avoiding the use of fake documents or videos. - Specific figures and institutions named - Kash Patel is cited as saying there are “open files on a dozen plus coconspirators” and as someone who has noted alleged misdirections by those handling Epstein-related material. - Kyle Serafin and Phil Kennedy are mentioned as documenting a person at the FBI capacity who is “an anti-Trump advocate,” implying that deep-state appointments control FOIA and related processes. - Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss replacing FOIA and related personnel who are deeply implicated; they specifically name Tom Fitton as the ideal choice and entertain other high-profile figures like Tulsi Gabbard as potential custodians of the Epstein disclosures. - Tulsi Gabbard is described as being in charge of broader investigations tied to the Epstein files and other major political issues (elections, COVID-19, etc.). They also reference “Epstein files” intersecting with other investigations they attribute to the deep state. - Epstein, Maxwell, and allied networks - Epstein is described as deeply embedded with Western intelligence agencies (French, Israeli, UK, and US) and tied to Robert Maxwell, with Maxwell’s daughter linked to Epstein. Epstein is portrayed as having been “recruited by Bill Barr” and as a central figure in a long-running intelligence and blackmail operation. - The discussion links Epstein to Leslie Wexner (Victoria’s Secret founder) and a French talent agency, portraying these connections as part of a large, interconnected network involved in money laundering, arms trafficking, blackmail, and intelligence work. - The speakers insist that Epstein’s activities extended to the late 1990s and beyond, including alleged involvement in “Shutters” in Santa Monica and other high-profile cases, with a consistent pattern of using underage girls and blackmail to exert influence. - They emphasize a broader motive: exposing the “deep state” to vindicate Trump and indict deep-state actors who allegedly engaged in illicit operations, including foreign intelligence services and Western governments. - The broader political frame and potential indictments - The Epstein files are presented as a potential hinge for indicting a wide array of figures across political lines, including references to Comey, Mueller, Hillary Clinton-era actors, and other “rogue actors” who allegedly hindered investigations. - The conversation ties Epstein to broader themes: the 2020 election, COVID policies, and anti-Trump actions by the “deep state.” They contend that the Epstein disclosures could demonstrate the depth of state interference in political processes and media, making Democrats and their institutions targets of accountability. - They argue the Epstien files could show criminal activity by multiple national actors, including Israeli, UK, and French components, and could reveal coordinated efforts to derail Trump and manipulate media narratives. - The Candace Owens angle and related criticisms - A substantial portion of the dialogue critiques Candace Owens, alleging she is running a “CIA-style” operation that distracts from the true conspiracy around the deep state and Tarantifa, and that she manipulates narratives related to Tyler Robinson and Charlie Kirk. - They accuse Owens of shifting narratives, fabricating alibis, and promoting disinformation, calling her a “SIOP” (psychological operation) and alleging her behind-the-scenes connections to MI6 or other international actors through her husband (George Farmer) and other associates. - They recount multiple incidents where Owens purportedly changed stories about meetings, alibis, and involvement in various investigations, asserting she uses “receipts” selectively and inconsistently to support divergent claims. - The speakers allege that Owens’s public warfare against Trump and TP USA is part of a broader intelligence operation intended to disrupt conservative momentum, link to Royal/MI6 circles, and undermine investigations into the deep state and its networks. - Tyler Robinson case and media dynamics - They describe Tyler Robinson as a Middle American figure whose transformation into a political actor is portrayed as a product of online radicalization and Tarantifa-linked influences. They claim there was a concerted effort to spoon-feed disinformation about Robinson and Candace Owens’ involvement. - They argue this is part of a larger pattern of media manipulation and disinformation designed to distract from real conspiracies and to target Trump and conservative movements. - Strategy and messaging guidance - The speakers advocate for Trump to go on the offensive with Epstein, releasing comprehensive, verified documentation, and pushing accountability for “rogue actors” in the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, and the NSA. - They stress the need for aggressive prosecution and the appointment of trusted figures to lead the Epstein disclosures, arguing that this could restore public confidence and pivot the political conversation toward accountability for the deep state. - They urge addressing the statute of limitations issues in COVID, January 6, and 2020 election-related cases before the window closes in early 2026, warning that delays by Bondi, Blanche, and others could jeopardize prosecutions and political support. - Promotional and logistical notes - The dialogue includes frequent mentions of promoting Alex Jones programs, products, and stores (alexjonesstore.com and infowarsstore.com) to fund operations, along with appeals to listeners to support the broadcasts financially and through purchases, framing financial support as essential to sustaining investigations, media efforts, and broader political action. In sum, the transcript presents an entangled, aggressively conspiratorial narrative: a claim that Epstein’s files illuminate a vast, deeply embedded deep-state apparatus spanning multiple nations and agencies; a call to appoint trusted figures (notably Tom Fitton) to supervise full disclosure; a push for Trump to declassify and publicly prosecute the implicated actors; a harsh critique of Candace Owens as part of a disinformation ecosystem; and a broader strategy to use Epstein, along with related investigations, to dismantle perceived institutional corruption while fueling political narratives and fundraising.

Gary Melton (Gary) and Mitch have a lengthy, meandering exchange that centers on veterans’ histories, alleged government manipulation, personal trauma, and the pursuit of truth around high-profile political cases. The core thread is an effort to verify Mitch’s claims about his SF background and to explore broader claims about political interference, media narratives, and potential conspiracies. Key points and exchanges: - Identity, background, and verification: - Gary identifies himself as a former SF soldier seeking to verify Mitch’s SF history after seeing his Candace Owens interview. - Mitch provides his SF timeline: he was in group from February/March 1993 until November 1996; MOS 18 Charlie (medic). He mentions attending the 300F1 course and a severe on-duty accident at Guadalupe River, involving a 60-foot fall that caused multiple injuries (spine, feet, knee, lumbar, dislocations, torn labrum, etc.). - Mitch describes his treatment (brace, three-week leave, then recycled into the next class and internship at Brookhaven Army Medical Center Burn Ward). He mentions ODA +1 63166/ +1 63/ +1 66 and places himself on +183 and +185 in the old numbering system; later, he notes the transition to the newer numeric system circa 2002-2006. - Gary asks for Mitch’s DD214 to verify the story; Mitch agrees and offers to share it. He references being in “Lake Baja” and knowing Nate (Nate Chapman), whom he spoke with the day before. - Personal stakes, trauma, and family: - Mitch explains a long, difficult divorce and custody battle that spanned many years. He says he was a stay-at-home dad for his son, who is now 13, and describes persistent, aggressive accusations against him (PTSD, abuse, murder) by courts and media figures. - He recounts a prior incident involving a coworker or classmate, Jimmy Walker, and notes that Walker later claimed PTSD and discrimination in SF contexts. Mitch frames this as part of broader patterns of how SF status can be weaponized in custody and legal battles. - Mitch and Gary discuss how the SF environment can foster suspicion, paranoia, and intra-community politics (e.g., clashes with SF Brothers, admin actions, and the difficulty of maintaining contact with peers after leaving the teams). - Candace Owens, TPUSA, and broader conspiratorial discussions: - The callers discuss Candace Owens’ involvement, the TPUSA circle, and the believability of various claims. Mitch says he has wanted to vet the claims through Candace and Joe Kent, and he’s offered to supply documents to verify stories. He notes that Candace has reportedly pulled threads about various shooters and narratives and that this has caused friction with TPUSA. - Mitch argues that Candace might be exploited by political or foreign adversaries and that her narratives sometimes lack corroborating evidence, distracting from “the truth.” He insists on corroborating Mitch’s own story with documents (DD214, other records) before airing anything publicly. - Gary responds with skepticism about online personas but agrees to vet Mitch’s materials, emphasizing integrity and a desire to verify truth. Both acknowledge the risk of backend manipulation, bot attacks, and the use of media figures to push narratives. - Ballistics and the Charlie Kirk incident: - A substantial portion of the discussion turns to ballistics surrounding Tyler Robinson and the Charlie Kirk incident. Mitch (the ballistics expert) explains that many variables affect ballistic outcomes (ammo type, grain, bullet construction, handloads vs. factory ammo, barrel condition, yaw, stabilization). He argues that the 30-06 round’s behavior can be highly variable and that an “atypical” (non-normative) wound could occur for many reasons. - He compares Martin Luther King’s assassination (65-yard shot, 30-06, open casket) to Charlie Kirk’s wound, noting similarities in the trajectory and lack of an exit wound in some high-profile cases. He cites Chuck Ritter (Green Beret) who was shot multiple times with 7.62x54R and survived, and uses these examples to illustrate the complexity of interpreting ballistic evidence. - Mitch asserts that multiple plausible explanations exist for Kirk’s wounds and stresses that the exact ammunition type, projectile, and ballistic conditions are unknown at present. He emphasizes that investigators possess DNA and surveillance records (DNA on the firearm, trigger, cartridge, towel used by Tyler Robinson) and text messages; he notes that Mitch is not claiming to know the entire truth but wants to see corroborating evidence. - The two discuss the possibility of government involvement or manipulation, while acknowledging that ballistics alone cannot prove a broader conspiracy. They note the challenges of obtaining complete ballistic data before trials, and they express openness to future verification once more information becomes available (e.g., during trial proceedings). - Custody, investigations, and accountability: - Mitch recounts the broader pattern of SF members being targeted by legal systems when in contentious custody situations, with accusations and judgments influenced by SF status. He cites examples of coercion, character assassination, and the weaponization of families in court battles. - They discuss how the FBI and other agencies have handled high-profile cases, noting distrust in narratives presented by authorities and media. They acknowledge that public transparency is essential, even as prosecutions proceed. - Platform, vetting, and next steps: - The two plan to continue the vetting process: Mitch will provide DD214 and related documents to Gary, who promises to verify and not disclose sensitive information without Mitch’s consent. They discuss sending further documents via email or text (Gary’s Paramount Tactical contact). - Mitch expresses a desire to appear on Gary’s show and to connect with Nate (Nate Chapman) for collaborative vetting. Gary commits to facilitating, offering to act as an advocate if Mitch’s story is verified and to help set up communications with Nate and Candace as appropriate. - The conversation closes with both agreeing on the importance of truth, corroboration, and accountability. They acknowledge the risk and the emotional toll of revealing sensitive histories but emphasize their commitment to pursuing the truth and preventing misinformation or manipulation. Overall, the transcript captures a tense, exploratory exchange between two veterans and affiliates about verifying SF credentials, the personal toll of custody and legal battles, the influence of political narratives, and the complexities of ballistics and forensics in high-profile incidents. The participants stress verification through documents, corroboration of anecdotes, and cautious, integrity-driven engagement with media figures and audiences.

On a Zoom call the night before his death, I was giving Charlie advice for how to message on this issue on his forthcoming campus tour, and he joked, “Josh, I'm gonna mention your book, Israel and civilization, and it's so good.” He referenced a letter to Netanyahu read in June or July; the opening sentence is, “As a Christian, one of my greatest joys in life is making friendships with the Jewish people and defending the state of Israel.” After his death, critics claimed he was turning on Israel, but that letter begins this way: “As a Christian… defending the state of Israel.” “Filth. Okay? Absolute filth. I I don't understand it.” “There was no truth in him.” He says three people claimed Charlie said within twenty four hours he thought they would kill him, and questions Josh Hammer about “the night before.” He warns: “if I get a text message… I will release it instantly. There'll be no place that you can hide.” He sent around a life insurance policy package with “text messages, emails, private communications, videos, and private legal documents.” He says, “If anything happens to me, … they have my explicit permission to release it all, detonate it all, expose all of these people in politics and in the movement who behave like this behind the scenes. It's necessary.” He cites Kanye: “Everything that Kanye said was so real. … Kanye was right” and urges to “leave me alone. Let me say what I believe, you say what you believe. Fight fair.”

Candace Owens publicly pressures Turning Point USA executives to address her explosive claim about Charlie Kirk's stance on Israel and his death. She states: "Forty eight hours prior to his death, Charlie Kirk notified Turning Point USA, Jewish donors, and a rabbi that he had no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause outright." She asks, "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 onstage reunion could happen?" and demands: "I want Turning Point USA executives to issue a very clean statement saying that I am lying if this is not true." A speaker adds: "You tell the truth and you tell it immediately." The clip asserts "There was no signs Israel had no reason to want Charlie Kirk dead" and questions whether "the most pro Israel ally ever" would turn on them. It closes with broader anti-media and anti-government rhetoric, citing "24% Americans pro Israel" and "98% of our government pro Israel."

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.

Candace Owens discusses Macron allegedly asking Trump to silence her and the subsequent lawsuit against her, claiming it's a PR strategy. The suit is based on claims she never made, and she believes the Macrons are trying to impoverish her for speaking the truth. She references a book that alleges Brigitte Macron doesn't exist and has been harassed by the French government. Owens says she offered the Macrons an opportunity to respond to the allegations before her series ran, but they refused to answer basic questions. She believes the Macrons are responding emotionally and out of fear. She also discusses the lawyers representing the Macrons, claiming they specialize in intimidation. Owens alleges that Emmanuel Macron was 14 when he met Brigitte, who was his teacher, and that his parents removed him from the school because of the relationship. She also claims that people in the Macrons' orbit have been found guilty of child molestation. She says she is not anti-Semitic, and that she is simply telling the truth. She also discusses Nick Fuentes, claiming he is dishonest and that she believes he is part of a campaign to discredit non-crazy right voices. She defends Harvey Weinstein and discusses the Epstein case, claiming Israel is controlling the government. She says she will never support Israel and that Jewish Americans should not support Israel. She advises Trump not to think he is smarter than his audience. She says her spiritual practice is Catholicism and that she has real faith.

Candace Owens: Shabbat shalom and Hanukkah wishes. Israel has a right to defend itself. Then she riffs about Tucker Carlson and TikTok, but shifts to recount of a four-and-a-half hour meeting with Turning Point USA, Erica, Justin Streiff, and others to address questions and concerns. Candace Owens: She emphasizes she invited Erica and others to answer questions, noting there were no rules in the room for that four-and-a-half hour session; the aim was to get clear answers and understand what Turning Point USA could or could not disclose. She describes the participants: Justin Streiff, Erica, George for part of it, her cousin Mia for vibes, and later George leaving. She explains her goal was to determine why Turning Point USA hadn’t answered basic questions and to address what she saw as miscommunications and lies. Candace Owens: Erica owned apparent lies or miscommunications early in the discussion, explaining that 650 employees can be emotional and that messages circulating on Twitter didn’t always reflect management’s communications. She references a prior interview with Glenn Beck and a viral clip about Charlie’s phone, clarifying Erica looked at Charlie’s iMessages and found he used Signal and Telegram, not regular texting. Andrew Kolbet (Kolbet) told her that Andrew did receive a message the night before the shooting saying “they’re going to kill me,” and she notes that Dan Flood received a similar message; she cautions about confirming the exact wording for Dan’s message. Candace Owens: She contends that some content from Barry Weiss’s interview was planned and not random, and that Barry Weiss asked questions that were directed; Erica said she knew the general idea but not the exact Candace Owens question. Candace maintains she did not recant her suspicions and lists concerns about specific Turning Point USA figures: Terrell Farnsworth allegedly lied about camera disruptions; Blake Neff and Mikey McCoy’s call logs were discussed, with Candace blaming Terrell’s actions and questioning the credibility of Tyler Boyer and Rob McCoy. She notes Rob McCoy does not work for Turning Point USA, contradicting the sense that he was “America’s pastor” at Memorial and that his Wikipedia entry had been updated accordingly. Candace Owens: She discusses the “magic bullet” and the texting around Charlie Kirk’s shooting. She recounts Andrew Kolbet’s claim that a surgeon stated the bullet should have gone through Charlie and could have killed those behind him; she emphasizes Andrew went to the surgeon and claimed permission to post but acknowledges questions about HIPAA. She notes investigators later indicated the surgeon didn’t know Andrew before the tweet, and that Kolbet’s post reflected an unverified account. Candace Owens: She describes the security around the event, the involvement of Brian Harpole in interviews (Sean Ryan) and a lack of certainty about whether he still works with Turning Point USA. She says that investigators are in an ongoing process, that no one from Turning Point USA or Erica has seen new evidence beyond what the public has, and that an May probable cause hearing will reveal concrete evidence. She criticizes media narratives that declare “the evidence is overwhelming” and argues for a cautious, transparent approach, acknowledging she had pressed for more concrete proof before publicly asserting involvement of specific individuals. Candace Owens: She reveals she asked for Mikey McCoy’s logs and confirms Mikey’s real name, sharing that Mikey called his wife first, then his father, and only later added Erica to the call, with subsequent calls involving his brother. She notes Blake Neff’s call with his mother and the timeline around the shooting, addressing discrepancies in various retellings and emphasizing the need for accuracy in call logs. Candace Owens: She mentions the Hamptons retreat and alleged lies, referencing Seth Dillon’s confrontation with Charlie Kirk and concerns about funding offers from BB Netanyahu to take Turning Point USA to the next level, which she says Erica denied knowing about, while noting multiple sources confirmed the offer. She clarifies she never asserted a $150,000,000 figure, only that there were discussions about taking Turning Point to the next level and that the offer’s gravity raises questions. Candace Owens: She returns to Egyptian planes, promising an upcoming interactive timeline on her site showing planes’ patterns and how they tie to Israel, arguing this is part of the broader pattern they are following. She notes that planes regularly fly in and out of Israel with transponders off, and she plans to present this evidence tomorrow, inviting scrutiny of those planes’ activity. Candace Owens: The segment ends with a tease about presenting the Egyptian planes evidence and transitions to sponsor mentions.