Latest / DarkHorse Podcast / Was Charlie Kirk Killed With a Drone? Viva Frei and Jimmy Dore on DarkHorse

Transcript

Was Charlie Kirk Killed With a Drone? Viva Frei and Jimmy Dore on DarkHorse · DarkHorse Podcast

• 0:00
  Hey folks, welcome to the DarkHorse podcast Inside Rail.
• 0:04
  It's going to be a special one.
• 0:05
  I have with me Viva Frei and Jimmy Dore, and we are going to be talking about the Charlie Kirk assassination.
• 0:14
  I think in the interest of full disclosure, we have three of us, me included, who have landed in different positions with respect to what we believe may have happened.
• 0:25
  And the reason that I have gathered Viva and Jimmy is that I take them to be honest brokers who are reasoning from the evidence they see and I presume would change their estimation if they saw new evidence that changed the probabilities significantly in their minds.
• 0:43
  So figuring out how we've landed in three different positions is the objective here.
• 0:49
  I will say at the front, probably the wrong thing to say, but this is not a debate.
• 0:54
  This is a friendly conversation to the death.
• 0:58
  And I hope to be the last person standing.
• 1:05
  You're on fire today.
• 1:07
  Well, you know, some days are like that.
• 1:10
  I hope you don't mean literally, but in any case, let's get to it.
• 1:16
  Our first sponsor today is SaunaSpace, which makes amazing saunas and therapeutic lights.
• 1:21
  SaunaSpace combines red light therapy, near infrared and deep radiant heat for whole body results at home.
• 1:28
  They don't make harsh LED panels or giant wood boxes.
• 1:31
  After over 10 years of R&D, SaunaSpace has developed a proprietary sun-like product called Firelight Spectrum.
• 1:38
  It's flicker free, glare free and comfortable to use with long life incandescent bulbs that stay consistent for more than five years.
• 1:46
  If you've looked into saunas and red light therapy, you know the market is a mess, full of claims that seem designed to obscure rather than heal.
• 1:52
  It's hard to know if any given product is effective or what frequencies it produces or whether it emits harmful electromagnetic radiation.
• 1:59
  The only product that we've found that clearly lives up to its scientific and health claims is SaunaSpace.
• 2:04
  SaunaSpace has two flagship products, the glow and the Firelight sauna.
• 2:08
  The glow is a single large light that can be used by a desk or bedside.
• 2:12
  It can alleviate screen fatigue and the ill effects of blue light and helps with skin, mood and energy concerns.
• 2:18
  It's great to use at night as your only light source and it also works as spot relief for sore backs, tight shoulders or cramps.
• 2:25
  SaunaSpace's Firelight sauna is a full body sauna that promotes sweat and also provides red light and near infrared therapy.
• 2:32
  It's beautiful and powerful and contributes to deep detox, pain relief and better sleep.
• 2:38
  From stress relief to healing and recovery, the sauna is amazing.
• 2:41
  The Firelight sauna offers short fast sessions with no preheat necessary.
• 2:45
  You flip the switch and start sweating in minutes.
• 2:48
  It's a beautiful canvas sauna that is lightweight and fits into a spare room or corner.
• 2:52
  You can start small with the glow.
• 2:54
  They're single full spectrum red and infrared light or you can go all in with the Firelight sauna.
• 2:59
  All SaunaSpace products are built with integrity and handmade in Missouri with organic cotton, bamboo, sustainable unfinished basswood and medical grade stainless steel.
• 3:08
  No toxic glues or plastics and no off-gassing.
• 3:11
  The grounding mat and optional silver lining upgrade blocks environmental EMFs like Wi-Fi to enhance healing.
• 3:18
  You get a 100-day home trial and outstanding customer care.
• 3:21
  Take your wellness to the next level with SaunaSpace.
• 3:24
  DarkHorse listeners get an exclusive 10% off site wide when you shop at sauna.space/DarkHorse.
• 3:32
  That's S-A-U-N-A dot space slash DarkHorse.
• 3:36
  Discount will be automatically applied at checkout.
• 3:39
  Our second sponsor this week is MUD\WTR.
• 3:41
  If you like the routine of making and drinking something warm in the morning but don't drink coffee or you're trying to cut down on your coffee intake, maybe MUD\WTR is for you.
• 3:49
  If you're looking for a different way to kick off your day with a delicious warming enhancing drink, try MUD\WTR.
• 3:54
  MUD\WTR makes fantastic products.
• 3:56
  Their original super functional coffee alternative has a beautiful list of ingredients that includes cacao and chai for just a hint of caffeine, lion's mane mushrooms to support focus, cordyceps to help support physical performance, chaga and reishi to support your immune system, and cinnamon which is a potent antioxidant.
• 4:14
  That's what's in their original coffee alternative, but MUD\WTR makes a whole suite of other drinks too.
• 4:20
  They've got a matcha coffee alternative and a mushroom coffee.
• 4:23
  They've got a turmeric forward drink that is caffeine free and has the same mushrooms plus ginger, cinnamon and baobab.
• 4:30
  And MUD\WTR has a drink they call Rest which has rooibos tea and valerian root, turkey tail and ashwagandha, chamomile and passionflower.
• 4:38
  There are more products than that too so you should go to MUD\WTR and find exactly what you're looking for.
• 4:43
  Every single ingredient in their products is 100% USDA organic, non-GMO, gluten-free and vegan.
• 4:49
  MUD\WTR's original flavor is warm and spicy with a hint of chocolate plus masala chai which includes ginger and cardamom, nutmeg and cloves.
• 4:57
  It's also delicious blended into a smoothie.
• 5:00
  Ready to make the switch to cleaner energy?
• 5:02
  Head to mudwtr.com and grab your starter kit today.
• 5:06
  Right now our listeners get an exclusive deal up to 43% off starter kits plus free shipping and a free rechargeable frother when you use the code DarkHorse.
• 5:16
  That's right up to 43% off with the code DarkHorse at mudwtr.com.
• 5:22
  After your purchase they'll ask how you found them.
• 5:25
  Please show your support and let them know we sent you.
• 5:27
  Do you guys want to just state your beliefs at the current moment?
• 5:34
  Not wetting yourself to them in the future but how do you as of today, August 18th, how do you see the assassination of Charlie Kirk and its likely explanation?
• 5:46
  Viva you want to start?
• 5:47
  Yeah I'll start.
• 5:48
  I mean I think what's funny is I don't actually think substantively Jimmy and I are going to disagree on even where we would be inclined to go by way of hypothesizing.
• 5:56
  You know and it's not a question of buying a fed slop narrative or buying the official narrative.
• 6:03
  I at some point you have to just rely on the evidence that exists at the time to the best of your ability and question that which you think is implausible or unrealistic and also understand you believe things that you don't yet have any evidence to substantiate and I do and I admit that I do.
• 6:22
  My belief is that it was a shot that killed, it was a bullet that killed Charlie Kirk.
• 6:26
  It came from the low sea building roof where people immediately turned after hearing the shot.
• 6:32
  I was watching it the second after it happened and talking with people on the ground immediately after it happened and it's only after the fact that the idea of it not being a bullet even came up.
• 6:44
  Whether or not it's Tyler Robinson that took the shot on the roof, I would have zero problem entertaining the possibility that it was even Lance Twiggs or somebody else who took the shot but I have great difficulty in the absence of any other indicator other than the absence of evidence believing that it was anything other than a bullet.
• 7:02
  The argument that a .30-06 doesn't do that, never been convinced by anybody definitively saying how every round of any bullet will always behave without exception and so I'm operating on the basis right now.
• 7:14
  Charlie Kirk was shot, Lance, Tyler Robinson if he wasn't the one who took the shot was involved.
• 7:21
  He was seen on surveillance, his family identified him, his boyfriend identified him.
• 7:26
  I don't trust the boyfriend as far as I can throw him in terms of his statement that seems to limit his own potential involvement.
• 7:32
  I believe other people were involved because other people had advanced clearly that something was going to happen.
• 7:38
  I wouldn't be shocked that I believe though can't prove that George Zinn, the crazy old man who was found with CSAM on his phone afterwards who immediately said I did it in order to give the true gunman time to flee is somehow involved in ways that we don't yet know and until evidence to the contrary comes up to implicate foreign nations, foreign leaders, foreign actors or even domestic actors which I believe are very possibly at play here, you can't create evidence that doesn't exist and you can only so plausibly deny the evidence that has been presented as of the present date in order to come to other theories but that's the broad brushstrokes.
• 8:17
  Charlie was shot.
• 8:18
  If Tyler Robinson wasn't the one who pulled the trigger, I believe there was an orchestrated event that had more than one person involved and I also do believe that there might be good reasons why investigators would want to limit investigation and or not possibly explore other alternatives that might implicate foreign or domestic elements of intelligence or government.
• 8:40
  Fascinating.
• 8:41
  All right, Jimmy, you want to lay out your position?
• 8:45
  Well, sure.
• 8:45
  My position is I don't know who exactly killed Charlie Kirk but I do know that there's a cover-up happening and then people are lying all over the place and that the official narrative doesn't make any sense that a guy who by Lance Twigs own testimony, they never talked about politics and he never even mentioned Charlie Kirk to him would one day wake up at four o'clock in the morning, drive to a campus he had never been to before and magically find the one staircase that is not secured or being monitored by the police or his security team and then get up on and then somehow have a three and a half foot rifle jammed down his pants and somehow make it make and walk up all those steps and then get onto the roof, change his clothes, he's up down the roof for eight to ten minutes and nobody sees him except people did see him.
• 9:44
  Again, just like Butler, people from the crowd saw the guy on the roof, you know, who didn't see him, the state police, the local police, the campus police and Charlie's million-dollar security team but people in the crowd saw him.
• 9:57
  In fact, there's video of it and by the way, the FBI never contacted the guy who had video of it and saw him so that's all part of the cover-up and then he somehow he spider after he takes the shot which they don't have any video he then spider-mances way off the building leaving a palm print except the palm print doesn't match Tyler and of course he puts the he then traverses on his way to hide the gun he traverses a construction site and the construction guy says the guy his description of the guy doesn't match Tyler Robinson it actually matches Lance Twiggs.
• 10:41
  The video they don't have any video cameras they don't have video that looks like him they have video that looks like a taller person than Tyler Robinson they have video that looks like a much thicker person than Tyler Robinson and they doctored the photos and the video to make it look more like Tyler Robinson.
• 11:04
  He so I don't buy the .30-06 because the people that I've seen who know a lot about it including the guy who from the SEAL Team Six who shot Osama bin Laden said there's no way and then he also was with a I think an admiral from the said that who said there's no way that it was a .30-06 so and nobody can recreate that right so they've tried to recreate it nobody can but anyway so there's so though there's that there's the cover-up for sure like they they dug not only did they pave over a crime scene they never sick they didn't secure it immediately they let people go in and pick up stuff and move stuff they let Farnsworth pick up the chair he was sitting on which would have blood spatter evidence on it and then go take the SD cards out and then he lied about why they lied about the then they take them there's no ambulance this is a million dollar there's 6,000 people there there's no ambulance they jam them in the and they're not doing first aid to them behind the table they jam them in an SUV and they then they take them to the hospital where the FBI took all the videotape away they moved all the people from that emergency room two hours earlier out of that place so there's no witnesses there's no video and then they they they clean the the the SUV and they immediately sell it and so there there's just over to me there's overwhelming evidence of a cover-up and so i mean and there's lots there's lots more right that's uh there's lots more the the the confession there's the problems with the timeline confession when he because he was already in custody when they said he he went on uh online and confessed uh the confessions on the text he says i i wanted to take this to my grave but apparently screw it i'm gonna give you every detail possible of how i not leave out anything and how i did this um so i mean we could we'll get into more of it i don't i don't want to just keep talking but so to me uh there's overwhelming evidence of a cover-up happening and i i liked what you said online bret was that if Tyler Robinson did it why is there a cover-up and that's exactly what i immediately the stuff they were saying didn't make sense in fact most recently when andrew wilson said he had unforeseen text messages from Charlie Kirk uh saying he was afraid of a left is killing him he wouldn't show that and he said he got it from TPUSA he wouldn't show it uh and it's directly contradicted by Erika Kirk uh saying that she had his phone by the way why does she have his phone why does she have his necklace why was why were they allowed to get rid of his t-shirt why were there all those uh shards of plastic that looks like a RØDE microphone pack exploded inside the car that canis owen's got pictures of so there's just i mean i can go on and on and on i won't so i'll stop there and just say it's to me it's overwhelming evidence that he that there is a cover-up happening and is Tyler Robinson involved somehow i think that's a i'll go there's probably a 50 50 yeah i think he might be involved somehow uh but i'll go with what mark garrigos the famous uh lawyer said that uh he i don't understand why Lance Twiggs isn't a suspect he's not under investigation instead he's being given a certain kind of immunity to testify so that's i guess that's my kind of position that i to me that's an obvious cover-up and and it smacks to me very much and we kind of talked about this online about it being like covid and because anybody who doubts the official narrative is called evil demonic i had that guy barnes the day on twitter saying that i'm i'm just like q anon and you know so anybody who so when when you're not allowed to question one thing i've learned in this game that i've been i've been in this game since 2008 and if it's one thing i've learned is when you're not allowed to question that means there you're over the target and somebody's trying to start you up and there's some fuckery uh about and so you're anybody who questions is considered evil demonic q anon ruining their reputation you have to accept the the the uh the official establishment narrative i'm not saying that Viva is saying that but almost everyone else who's on the other side is saying that and so and then they're all lying like the uh they lied about Charlie's text messages uh saying he was against the uh going against the israeli uh cause uh they all the influencers lied about in 4k video of him taking the shot it's like it's just there's an obvious cover-up happening people i i uh my spidey senses tell me are being paid uh to lie about this and of course there was uh the guy who dropped his pants i'm blanking on his name george george zim george zim he said he was paid to be a distraction uh so there's obviously and then not not even i'm not an expert on any of this i'm just saying the things that i have seen uh sure everything smacks of the covid cover-up and smacks of the cover-up just one thing Bret i mean i the what people say this is a it's a false dichotomy mischaracterization of the people who are using the term evil and the context in which they're using it nobody and and it's like it's become the the the the trope of those just asking questions to say i'm just questioning the narrative and people are calling me evil etc nobody is ever calling anybody who doesn't believe the official narrative evil where the people start getting called evil is when they suggest Erika Kirk is in on it that Charlie's own team was in on it when where people start getting called evil is when they start mocking Erika Kirk for wearing leather pants to the uh to the to the um the event the commemoration event after he died that where people start getting calling people evil is when they start throwing around accusations impugning the people who are victims in all of this in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that's when people call people evil you know when they put out a 12-part miniseries entitled the bride of chuck at the bride of Charlie at some point the behavior goes well beyond questioning the official narrative and does start to flirt with the realm of evil which is making the most insidious heinous accusations against people who are the victims in this until proof to the contrary simply because you don't like them accusing Erika Kirk of human trafficking from a romanian uh what are those things called orphanage i mean at some point Jimmy it's not you're not just asking not you they are not just asking questions they are making evil accusations victimizing the people who are victims of this until any evidence to the contrary so yeah at some point it does become evil okay so i want to say a couple things and then i want to lay out my position and how i get there there is i think i agree with you technically Viva on the fact that the term evil is reserved for a certain uh discussion but i have certainly experienced myself that the act of questioning the official narrative of Charlie Kirk's murder results in moral accusations against me and i find that conspicuous and i'm now recognizing it as a pattern from many of the battlegrounds that we have faced over the last 10 years or so where there is a desire when you are in a logically weak position to shift the question to a moral one in order to avoid dealing with the contradictions that you're forced to defend and so i agree with you that the term evil is being applied typically for a certain quadrant of of uh speculation but the idea that if i make a logical point that what comes back at me is a moral critique is troubling to say the least we ought to all be interested in figuring out what happened to Charlie Kirk it's profoundly important at a historical level and that means that anybody who comes into that discussion as an honest broker and is sorting through evidence in a good faith fashion is part of the solution we are sorting out the question and there is no justification for leveling a moral accusation against us for doing so and i'm not going to say this is a both sides issue but at some point we're going to have to agree that there if to the extent it exists it definitely exists on both sides i get out there and rightly question what is now basically seems like another debunked tangent of that cowboy steakhouse receipt and people accuse me of being an israeli shill where on the one hand i get accused of being a jew hating anti-semite because of my questions about october 7 and israel's response and the reflex is to now say i'm getting the bb box shekels or that i work for TPUSA you know or that i'm a jew and a zionist so they do this it's happening on both sides i think it's inorganic and also people are doing it willingly but to suggest that it's only or even primarily done to those questioning the narrative dude i don't even support the official narrative and the the trope is gobble the fledged fedslop narrative zionist jew bb box TPUSA employee which none of them are true so that's happening on both sides i agree and that's why i invited you here is that i don't think that that uh accusation could possibly land with you in light of the way i see you navigating this so i agree that there are moral accusations leveled by both sides when the question is analytical and that to me um you know that's a that's a yellow card every time it happens our final sponsor this week is Helix which makes truly fantastic mattresses our Helix mattress has served us well for over four years and we look forward to many more years with it if you've had trouble sleeping and who hasn't the problem might be your mattress a better mattress can help address issues like sleep apnea back pain and temperature problems Helix makes outstanding mattresses every one of which combines individually wrapped steel coils in the base with premium foam layers on top providing excellent support for your spine take the Helix sleep quiz online and less than two minutes you'll be directed to which of their many mattresses is best for you once you've found your perfect mattress you have 120 nights to try it out without any penalty all of Helix's award-winning mattresses are made in america fiberglass free and built to last everyone we know who has slept on a Helix mattress raves about it family members slept on our Helix mattress for a few nights and ordered one for themselves our son Zack has one in his college apartment and he loves it too Helix just makes fantastic mattresses go to HelixSleep.com slash DarkHorse for 27% off site wide exclusive for listeners of DarkHorse that's HelixSleep.com slash DarkHorse for 27% off site wide exclusive for listeners to the DarkHorse podcast once more HelixSleep.com slash DarkHorse all right so let me say where i find myself here and as is often the case i come at this from a slightly different perspective based on what i spent my adult life doing and training for i'm a biologist who is fascinated by complexity i like to go into a tropical forest and try to figure out as much as i can about what's going on and the more paradoxical the thing i'm trying to explain the more fun it is for me tropical forests do not cough up their secrets easily they do not label things so you know what you're looking at and so the toolkit involved in sorting out something in biology space that is unknown involves playing with all of the available evidence which is always a small fraction of what you would like and juggling potential explanations to see what fits best it works when you have a well-trained intuition for what sort of thread that seems unimportant to begin with if followed will reveal something important and those tools are not so different from a uh a contested crime like the killing of Charlie Kirk now i think we are haunted a bit in this discussion by the fact that there is a giant gap you have the official explanation you have Tyler Robinson a loaned gun shoots Charlie Kirk based on a plan that he formulated entirely uh himself his motivation was internal right that's a very neat explanation of the crime and superficially plausible and then you have a conspiracy of some kind in which tyler is potentially involved but there and the problem is that as soon as you step across that threshold things get very dark very fast who is it that would have the capacity to create a to pull off a killing like this and to cover their tracks such that and a an official narrative in which tyler robinson acted alone would stand up in court that tends to be an entity with a lot of capacity and so now things get ugly now i was interested to hear in your description Viva that you believe George Zinn was likely involved that he didn't just spontaneously stand up and claim credit for the crime um in the aftermath now i yeah i wouldn't it just wouldn't qualify as likely but if you want to talk about anomalies because everyone's like you know paving over a crime scene in four days is not so wildly out of protocol that it's an anomaly a man who happens to be there who whose whatever initial reflex is to immediately take credit for it and then admit that he took credit for the being paid part of Jimmy i've heard people say that you know apparently he was a nurse in the hospital we all heard him say it was to let you know give the gunman a chance to get away even if you just chalk him up to being a crazy old man who always goes to these events that that's his first reaction is implausible to me whether or not it's more likely i would say i would not be shocked if i found out that he was involved in Discord chats with a bunch of lgbt furries getting his rocks off and he happens to be a degenerate uh you know sex offender if not a c-sam offender and then lo and behold they also find that on his phone but yeah so not necessarily likely but just that's an anomaly that requires an explanation i agree and i will say that my key my key mechanism for pattern recognition is to look for anomalies with the understanding that it is impossible that you would have a crime scene as complex as this without there being in other words if there were no anomalies that would be weird there will always be anomalies because weird coincidences happen so the question is when is an anomaly sufficiently conspicuous to count it as probably indicating something and how do you hold that piece of evidence such that at the point that it peters out you're ready to abandon it i i have thought often about George Zinn since this um killing happened and i've wondered because it does strike me as a very strange fact of history as i've dug into the story of George Zinn it gets less interesting so the event happens in Utah he is apparently an addict where he goes to all major events in Utah frequently makes trouble the reports and you guys maybe know differently than i do but when i looked into the claim that he had been at the boston marathon bombing what i find is that that's not true we're certainly not clear and so i have the sense that there was a flurry of activity around this guy and at some level what turns out to be true about him i would say is consistent with two possibilities one is that he was part of a larger organized something or that he really is a sufficiently obsessed and troubled person who lies reflexively that uh you know maybe this was he was there because he would have been in an event this size in Utah and he spotted the opportunity he's been waiting his whole life for you know an event that was going to capture the attention of the world he's obviously so in other words i'm not telling you that i have a conclusion one way or the other but i am telling you that the more i've looked at George Zinn the less i'm going to put my weight on that ice i don't know what he indicates but it might well be nothing um and i would also say that one of the patterns that is true and could indicate one of two things is something actually Viva you've been involved in um in battling over which is that many of the things that superficially seem incredibly damning the paving over of the uh the site of the assassination which i do find conspicuous is less compelling than it might be in light i think you tweeted yesterday something to the effect of actually no matter what they had chosen to do with it the claim would be that it was anomalous so i think the paving was conspicuous the communications around it seems strange i don't know that my understanding of those communications is accurate but if it is it seemed alarming to me when i first heard it but again it's one of these pieces of evidence that um i wonder if it has been overemphasized i could say the same thing about the SUV right the SUV was um scrubbed and auctioned but before that Jimmy i mean i want to see what Jimmy's understanding is let's deal with the the paving and the crime scene because that's the one that i'm not even calling them the conspiracy theorists in a derogatory way that is the one who people who deny the official narrative say not only is it anomalous but again this is the absence of evidence it's the evidence of the exploding mic because the only reason they needed to dig up the soil not because of the blood and the biohazard was to get the remnants of explosives off the ground Jimmy your understanding of of the time frame within which they dug up and repaved is what so um they they got an emergency uh the guy who testimony who was there who did the paving said he was asked to get a crew that could keep their mouth shut and that they could do it they had an emergency paving thing which is the first one i've ever heard one ever in history and um and then when he got there it was already dug up and so they had dug it up 10 inches down and then he came in and with his crew and paved it over on day in Utah which is kind of crazy uh so that's that and not only did they pave over it but uh people leave out that they scrubbed everything the walls behind him the the overpass they had people uh scrubbing it i don't know if they painted it also but they completely scrubbed the whole crime scene and it's uh unbelievably conspicuous that they did that especially with the testimony of the guy who was one of the guys who was calling he said he was that this this order he said uh came from uh the FBI and the governor even though that there's other evidence that said it was the the university who requested it be done but that doesn't really mean anything because of course they would tell the you know they would do it that way so they wouldn't be there wouldn't be a direct anyway it's it's none of it that doesn't you know i think the one thing that would make it you know you said no matter what they did it would be a suspect or how whatever you said i would say if they taped it off and kept it and preserved the crime scene for a while at least till he got his defense team in place so they could go examine it themselves uh that would mean that that wouldn't be suspicious but everything they did was unbelievably suspicious to me well i this is where there's two things people it's a tendency where people the more detailed people describe something and it's an attempt to like make it look much more abnormal or much more complex and like you say like what did i do today well i you know i woke up i made some coffee i put some honey in it and i stirred it with the cream you can make very simple things much more complex and suspicious by adding details which on the one hand might not be accurate and also might be just totally irrelevant except to complicate things first things things it wasn't a crime scene and this is where i heard this and i was like okay it it seems anomalous like okay four days to pave over a crime scene and then you have to appreciate it's no longer a crime scene once it had been released to the university and then you go back and you look and you say okay well typically how long do they cordon off a crime scene when it's in a public location and four days is not anomalously short and the example i gave was the in and out burger in idaho they were back open for business in six i mean i say i'm rounding it up to six just to not be accused of missing a day they were shut down for five days and so it turns out four days is not anomalous that much it turns out it wasn't a crime scene until people use that term and false not just falsify the debate i'm not saying they're doing it maliciously they they falsify impressions it was no longer a crime scene and then the question is going to be well why did they dig it up someone said to me well did they dig up the floor at the uh in and out burger in idaho i was like well no because there wasn't biohazard that had been you know soaked up into the soil and so they dug it up they paved it over why they do it on a sunday they want to get back to university oh you know public stuff on a monday and there's no need to to turn this into a uh what's a mausoleum when you this is one of the most public areas in the university so i mean i was at first very suspicious as well and then the explanation not that it makes sense it's that maybe there was an attempt to cover something up and then the question is going to be well who would cover it up and why and the only reason people want to harp on this is because they want to run with the exploding microphone theory that they had to dig up the soil so that you know people couldn't do lab tests on the soil to determine explosives and then you understand why the university might have wanted to do it to avoid every internet sleuth showing up on the scene during public hours taking soil samples to do their own independent research all right i want to i want to jump in here and uh apply my toolkit because i hear what both of us are saying and i see uh truth in both of these things you have a troubling situation UVU is going to be known for the assassination of Charlie Kirk it's going to be the first thing that comes to mind for UVU for the rest of time in all probability they are an institution that has to figure out what is the truth about that and so i can imagine that there is a desire to scrub you know absolutely everything on the university's part that has nothing to do with the cover up so when i look at questions like the paving i have to hold it as one of two things it could indeed be a cover-up in fact i think if this was a conspiracy that was if it was a conspiracy if this was larger than Tyler Robinson acting alone then it did not go perfectly as planned and so the desire to make sure that evidence that reveals something inconsistent with the crime we're told happened that desire would cause a kind of scrub reaction on the other hand the university has a reason to do that that has nothing to do with covering up the crime and so i have to hold this as unclear on the other hand i do think what i can see what i can ascertain myself looking at the evidence that emerged after the crime the treatment of the crime scene was conspicuous atrocious and raises all kinds of questions that have never been satisfactorily answered so that one is a blinking red light to me right the the idea that the SD cards were removed it's never been satisfactorily explained that that obviously has what exactly did kill Charlie Kirk that is important the fact that you have a camera angle from directly in front of Charlie from which we apparently have not seen the footage that would likely falsify many hypotheses of the crime that's conspicuous the you know the moving of objects the i mean basically it was just a compromised crime scene from the get-go and there was no attempt to recover it and limit the damage or at least not an effort that was consistent with the magnitude of the crime now i will say as for the RØDE mic and actually let me let me back up before i get to the RØDE mic let me say i also think that in having this discussion we are hamstrung by the fact that it has become the alternative hypotheses of the crime have become synonymous with one person all right and i don't this is not about Candace to me in fact i think the point is the whole crime it's fine for Candace to do what she does but we now have the sense in public that the alternative what Candace is saying and i would say actually i don't even follow Candace i'm a guy with a scientific toolkit who is trying to wield the proper tools that is to say competing hypotheses for a pattern that we all observed for which we don't have complete evidence and i don't like that every time i raise this question the first thing that comes back at me is Candace said this is not healthy we have to have as many perspectives as there are and the one test of those perspectives is how well they predict evidence that we don't yet have so that brings me to the road microphone hypothesis of the crime hold on actually gret if i can if you can stop there just one second just to go back we say scrubbing the scene and also carries with it a connotation of improperness no i i specifically don't mean that i'm a first of all i've i've spent a good fraction of my adult life in a university i can imagine that one of the places that uh that i was either a student or teaching that a notorious crime has taken place there's an immediate meeting of the administration maybe the faculty and the question is how exactly do we go back to being a university right what if that you know what if there's a blood splatter somewhere right and so the idea will be okay well what we need to do is as quickly as possible make the space where this took place be an area that there's nothing to find right it is inherently going to be a place that people go but the point is it has to take on its new form quickly i can imagine that discussion and i can imagine it at an effectively maintenance and janitorial level that there's a whole lot that you would just decide to do you would effectively want to freshen revise not you know you don't want people digging up soil and i think you know you you keep mentioning i've seen you you mentioned it once here the biohazard of the soil i don't believe there was a biohazard at all right to the extent that blood may have landed on the ground there's no biohazard issue after a very short period of time but i can also imagine people digging as long as it's not paved you can imagine people digging for something you know the way people will have a moon rock from the moon landing people would want some memento of this crime and you you want to just prevent that from happening so i can imagine that that occurring but i can't imagine not protecting this crime scene and given that the crime scene was compromised i cannot imagine anything other than an obsessive effort to try to reconstruct exactly what was there including the SD cards all camera angles to figure out why it is that there was uh an inability to broadcast during the immediate instance of the event there's lots of stuff that i didn't see and i would say you know i have a kind of an informal list of dogs that didn't bark right there's the evidence we have and then there's the evidence that we don't have and let me give you an example of it uh or maybe i should Viva since i cut you off well also i'll let's say one thing to the extent you're using scrub as in to purify and not to alter then fine or to to tamper when Jimmy says you know what they could have done is taped off the crime scene and then cordoned it off until the defendant gets a defense that would be from what i understand and maybe i'm wrong that would be an anomalous treatment of a crime scene to the point where everyone say this isn't how you do it and the only reason they've done that is so they can go and purely totally scrub the crime scene modify it falsify it whatever i don't think i don't think there's i don't know how many cases there've been where you indefinitely close off a crime scene until the defense gets the defendant gets his defense team and that's at the time you don't even have a defendant at that point and you might never get one so i think that would have been even more anomalous and like i posited my post if they had done that then the other people of the world would say that's evidence of conspiracy they've now had two months to scrub and to falsify it and to plant the evidence that they wanted so that wouldn't resolve anything well look can i just respond and say that um they did have a defendant because took Kash Patel had a that that friday at 33 hours after that he said we got him we got him that's what he said so they did have a defendant a and to brat's point from the moment the assassinate happened uh the the crime scene was contaminated immediately and and and continuously right and to the point where they're not even securing evidence like why was his phone given back to erica Kirk why was his necklace which would be you think 100 uh evidence that should be it controlled is given back to her um uh the the why was the the bloody mic was given back to her so so they could auction it off to make money there's just so many and and people were allowed to take the SD cards people were allowed to move the microphone people were allowed to move the the the chair nobody was securing that thing whatsoever and then the the cop who goes up on the floor and finds the the the screwdriver just mysteriously his uh his body camera turns off which is ridiculous and then he doesn't even know who the other cop was on the roof with him except uh we were able to find that out like in half a day but he didn't he hadn't been able to find it out for 11 months or whatever so um that yeah that crime scene they allowed it to be completely contaminated and that and also the evidence so these are all big to me though these are big red flags that show me that there's a cover-up and the biggest thing that shows me there's a cover-up i forgot to mention this was that i just interviewed Joe Kent on my show on friday and he said he was the the kind of counterterrorism and he was looking in to see if there was some uh foreign involvement in this i said the biggest assassination in my lifetime uh right so the biggest assassination in my lifetime you'd think they would they would try to treat that place a little bit special but no okay i'll go but um Joe Kent said that he was stopped from investigating it so it's obvious that the FBI and the and the cops are not actually investigating it and that the guy who's at the tippy top of government of investigating stuff wanted to and he was stopped not only did he tell me he was stopped he told me who stopped him cash Patel Kash Patel stopped him so to me that's again right there this is just crazy obvious cover-up oh i'll throw it back to you brent yeah well i agree with much of what you just said and this is this is what i'm responding to is that what i see is we do not have an FBI and in the absence of an FBI what you have is this keystone cop stuff which were there a conspiracy would be a feature not a bug right the contamination of the crime scene is useful if what you're trying to do is confuse the question um leaving only the lone hypothesis standing so i i see many of those um precise anomalies and i want to point to one you guys can tell me maybe you're tracking some uh thread that i'm not but one of the dogs that didn't bark in this case for me is the RØDE microphone now i heard the hypothesis that it had been used to kill Charlie that it had exploded i of course made the connection to the pager attack uh on hezbollah but in thinking about that hypothesis of the crime i realized i think someone else could point out that i've done the logic incorrectly but that that hypothesis of the crime does not add up given the technology that we are told to imagine might have been used in other words a shaped charge would have behaved very differently than what we saw we would have smoke the equal and opposite reaction of the exploding mic would have been visible in some way other than a disturbance of the shirt so i convinced myself that can't be the explanation given the technology that we imagine might have been used there doesn't mean somebody doesn't have those forces the way a compensator cancels the muzzle rise on a rifle but i don't know what the technology would be and so i have to demote that hypothesis because it does not comport with the evidence we did see on the other hand here's the part here's the dog that didn't bark where's the damn mic where is it where's the damn mic and here's why that matters so that mic does two things that mic broadcasts a Wi-Fi signal that goes presumably to one of the cameras that's running it sends that feed right into the camera so that they stitch up the video and the audio stitch up together but it also records a 32-bit float file on the device itself in case the Wi-Fi fails that piece of evidence that file would be absolutely vital in either proving that the shot came from where they said it came from or disproving it that file is an incredibly powerful piece of evidence not only because it records the sound from the precise location of Charlie's body but because 32-bit float contains a tremendous amount of resolution in other words the amount that could be recovered from that file that would allow you to do a detailed sonic analysis is tremendous so the question is maybe they have it maybe they've analyzed that file but we've heard nothing about it and i don't know what to make of glass shards i don't know what to make of the disturbance of the shirt but i do find the absence of that device utterly conspicuous and it hasn't gotten enough attention in my opinion maybe because people assume it exploded well it's interesting you know in every in every cover-up you're going to want to have the useful noise which is going to distract people from the actual cover-up with nonsense and you know in as much as people misunderstood by drawing a comparison to sandy hook there are still people who out there seriously you know put forward that Charlie Kirk didn't die that it was cgi that you know they hauled him off and he's in witness protection and there are people who seriously entertain that idea the question is at what point do you just write off the patently insane ideas and at what point does do the people who might want to muddy the waters to actually cover up the cover-up promote entertain or legitimize those ideas yeah so that's so that no because every every operation has this yeah it's true that there has been no confirmation as to where the microphone is i it's not immediately write off the exploding mic the exploding microphone theory is based on negative evidence it can never be disproven because all that it's predicated on is a .30-06 didn't do it because it never does it and therefore that must be it because shirts don't move this way and and i saw some broken glass in a car as if after the thing goes you're gonna have broken glass that's going to be in the car um but it well it's true that you don't have the microphone where do you go from there to entertain the idea that it was a shape-charged microphone exploding device because israel did it with the terrorist leaders in hamas and the west bank or gaz in the west bank the only reason they did it in that circumstance was because of a total inaccessibility of getting in there to do it with a sniper or with you know a more immediate manner why anyone thinks all right the loci building roof was not covered it was not protected why was it it was the easiest access point that's part of the conspiracy and so they went with the most insanely elaborate risky not achieving the objective easily traceable exploding microphone as opposed to just getting a gunman on the roof i mean that's where i think you have conspiracy theories that are deliberately entertained put forward or promoted in order to distract from what the very cover-up might be which is why that roof was left totally unsecured and everything that falls from that but Jimmy i yes i'm sorry yeah that's it that's a great point so they will often uh the people who are doing a cover-up will promote crazy uh theories to discredit that there's a cover-up right or even better half-truths right take out some important piece of information by fusing it to something insane right so i'll just very quickly say why some people uh made that connection right because of the way his t-shirt moved right uh that nobody again i'll go back to the seal team six guy he said i've killed people i've shot people for this country and i've never seen the t-shirt move like that and i there's no there's very no one has actually explained how that happened but uh um the the the the the suspicious things that lead up to that uh theory is that um there was a month before uh there was that guy harrison who tweeted out that i've been told by people close to Charlie Kirk he's afraid that israel's gonna kill him if he turns on them and then the the the the meeting at the hamptons uh they denied that bb called in and offered him 150 million dollars that's been proven they also denied that Charlie Kirk had the night before texted that i uh i have no choice but to leave the israel cause i can no longer support the so they lied about all that stuff bijaman that yahoo comes out 39 minutes on the other side of the world in the middle of fighting a couple of wars uh 39 minutes comes out in tweets about Charlie Kirk's uh assassination and the fact that they have a history of using this kind of device so it's not like crazy that came out of nowhere there's a lot of things that point that that could be possible in the fact what brendt just said that they what where is it and where is that recording right so that would be very helpful the recording would still be on that mic uh and and where is that where is that recording mic thing so and of course the shards of glass then also uh in the in the in that car lead to they said oh that the first explanation was it was sunglasses got broken well we've proven it wasn't sunglasses right uh well i don't i'm not going to say proven it's been lots of people have who are experts in that say no that wouldn't be uh the sunglasses they don't break like that uh people who know about that so um so that's what so it didn't come out of nowhere but i think what Viva's saying that yeah that's certainly the case people who are doing a cover-up will often try to amplify a half truth or so they could be easily knocked out and then anybody who questions it looks like a main mental case well and that particular one is given the nature of the road wireless pro it has an on-board local recording which should definitely be there and is tremendously high resolution and it should have put out a signal presumably to either the board or to a camera that would have been recorded also those two pieces of evidence together would be tremendously useful either in establishing Tyler Robinson's guilt or establishing that something beyond the official theory of the crime took place by the way i'm using theory there because theory of the crime is the way it's described i will when i put forward something i'll say hypothesis because it tells you exactly what the toolkit is but one utility of the exploding mic hypothesis uh being so widely circulated is it does cause people to stop asking the question about where's the damn mic and if that mic was active it produced evidence that evidence is of very high quality and we've heard not word one about it as far as i know well also just one more thing if i may um and the reason why it's not crazy for people to entertain that hypothesis of an exploding mic was because they can't match that gun to the to the bullet fragments that they claim they found and and they and also that gun was not the cops who were looking for that gun uh could not find it the dog sniffing guns who can find a gun that was shot a week later couldn't find it but the moment the FBI shows up there's the gun so that's why it it so you can see why people would think it it it's it's plausible very plausible that it wasn't that gun it wasn't that shooter and it was something else maybe it was that shape charge maybe it was a direct energy weapon maybe it was so all these things i think need to be 100 explored and like bread said earlier is if you do you're called a mental case you're called called uh your your your morality's charged uh challenge stuff like that i want to sorry uh Viva i'll come right back to you but i just want to lodge this point if we had a functional FBI that was actually interested in investigating what happened during this crime then the question about how long the crime scene cordoned off would be as you describe it but the problem is you don't have an FBI you have an FBI that after butler was washing the roof washing the roof washing the freaking roof so the point is we don't have an FBI i don't know why that is or how it happened but worse worse than with butler by the way this is a point that i put out is i i don't blame people for going i call it the conspiratorial psychosis because i think at some point it stops being productive and it starts being harmful for the individual and for the truth you know when i can't blame people for going down this conspiracy conspiracy psychosis because you had this FBI it's not biden's FBI telling you that thomas crooks had no social media footprint and then when tucker carlson and brianne morrello report that he did instead of addressing it they create an FBI response thing on on x to go out and try to discredit tucker carlson brianne morrello and marynda divine and so i they don't like hearing it but a lot of the propensity to believe whatever the hell people want is facilitated by what this administration and the doj has done to eviscerate any trust that anyone thought they were going to have in this iteration of the institution and it allows people to believe whatever the hell they want because it's a post-truth world right now they don't even have evidence to substantiate that's why i'm pleading with people to use a scientific toolkit because the point is okay absent an FBI you need to exert logical discipline over how you process the evidence and what i see amongst those who are uh focused on conspiracy is anything that would contribute to your view of the of the crime is promoted as true rather than some sort of an evaluation about which of these things actually are evidence which of these anomalies are of a standard magnitude you know and if i can connect back to the the anomalies with the butler shooting okay in butler they told us the reason that that roof wasn't covered was that it was too steep one of the craziest things that's ever been said you remember that yes but a sloped roof here again again we don't have a sloped roof we have a perfectly flat roof has the person who decided not to cover the roofs been fired who is that person why is there not a discussion it was it was my understanding is it was campus security uh and it wasn't now i understand the people blaming wait wait Charlie Kirk and TPUSA were paying for a top-notch security team that somehow allowed campus security to decide whether the roofs were covered campus one one step from that's more police campus security one step above cop mall police but but i'm i'm just double checking if it was campus or city police but that's where i say like yeah that's where again if there's a cover-up or a failure to pursue if it seems to be clear that if if you accept the premise that it was a shot fired from the lozy roof that that roof was deliberately left uh unsupervised like they learned the wrong lesson from butler then i yeah and then you know go right back to the meeting Jimmy when you say how did Tyler Robinson who's never been to the campus know exactly where to go and he went to that roof that he knew was unsecured all of that is answered by the fact that there were people organizing this facilitating this and said that roof will be unsecured and here's how you get on it and and whether it's tyler or lance or somebody else that that explains it away that's not anomalous that that's coherent at that no no no i don't get this the way this should have gone down if tyler robinson was a crazed trans defending lone gunman was he should have gone to campus with his weapon he should have attempted to find a location from which to shoot Charlie and he should have been apprehended in the process right and the story a gunman has been apprehended at a TPUSA event in Utah two days later nobody hears about it again that that's if this had been normal that's what would have happened so the anomaly here is that a guy who hasn't been to this campus reasons his way onto a roof that happens not to be covered from which the shot he intended to take is possible he had if he was the lone gunman he had a stupid idea for how to commit this crime that happened to work because the people in charge of security were even stupider and by the way i'm just double checking in real time so it seems that it was Kirk's team who was concerned about the roof and it was local police that said the university's got it covered and this is where again where people might they might go from calling someone a conspiracy theorist to evil is when you say well that proves that Charlie's team was in on it in that you know they let it happen nothing as opposed to nothing in in my world nothing proves anything here okay what it does is gives you a signal something odd happened with roofs if Charlie's crack security team did not check up on the hey what do you mean the roofs are covered in what way are they covered are all of them covered but i appreciate at the end of the day like when you talk about the crime scene you know being chaotic it is at the end of the day these are humans who are more or less competent i often i mean i operate on the premise that security is is the illusion of safety but you're dealing with people and you're dealing with people who you know some of their they make stupid decisions and they're like oh okay you got it covered no problem oh what's that that roof is covered i don't i don't think so if somebody in the crowd had shot him then we would be saying well okay you can imagine that you either have to do one of two things you either have to cordon off the area and only allow people in with the metal detector and here's why they decided not to do that because it's too cumbersome to do that at every event and so the decision was made to take that risk and to keep your eye out for somebody with a weapon not covering roofs uh a it's not that hard to cover them right it takes a few people b it's an obvious vulnerability c if it wasn't obvious how obvious a vulnerability it is then it sure was after butler and so hundred percent yeah but then but being all appreciate look somebody should have been fired because it was their job whether it was their job to make sure that the campus police or the city police had the roofs covered if you're on security you're not looking for well that's somebody else's problem if Charlie Kirk gets shot because they told me they have the roofs covered the point is it's my job to figure out whether the people who are in charge of that thing are doing it correctly you know there's the old i don't like the expression but it's it's one that people say is something you some women would rather be raped than rude and so they don't want to say no to somebody and then they put themselves in a vulnerable position and they end up getting assaulted and have they just had the initial reflexes say i'm going to trust my gut and be rude to this person and not roll down the window not open the door not let them get in the elevator why didn't i listen to that you know this is where i'd say i have zero doubt that Charlie Kirk's security team are you know they feel responsible in that they say okay well the police told me that they got the roof covered and you know they say we can't fly our drones because we're going to have to be rude and whatever and i don't want to be rude and call them stupid and make them look like i don't trust them and so we've done it a hundred times and we've done it a hundred times without without an incident we'll just go with it and then it happens and now they're going to live with this for the rest of their lives same and by the way allowing that roof to be accessible a undermines the exploding microphone theory and b does emphasize a potential collusion like maybe there were activists at the universe at the university who didn't like Charlie and what he said that roof opened and you know one and a hundred times something will happen right but that that that is where the lack of an FBI comes into play a thousand percent but but that's where i just also don't have like that's where saying that it's negligence on the security team which i think most people will agree with versus saying they were in on it from the beginning it goes from conspiracy to evil accusations like well they're not you think it's negligence and i'm sure they in retrospect think it's negligent well they should have gotten fired instead of promoted whatever to say that it's negligence versus they let it happen on purpose because they wanted to kill Charlie is where you go from imputing negligence to imputing ill intent and that's where people can say that's no longer just asking questions that's making the most insidious accusations and entering into the realm of evil well there can i just say that that their behavior is unbelievably suspicious uh in fact if you listen to the Charlie Harpole i mean uh Brian Harpole on Shawn Ryan she said that they weren't allowed they weren't allowed to have drone coverage and but if you listen to Frank Turek he said i'm watching the drone coverage on my phone so but but there was a there was a conventional explanations that well again whether you believe it that they were told my understanding it was during the event you couldn't have drones but you can get promotional material beforehand that's my understanding and i might be wrong and again and i'm sure yeah no and then why wouldn't his security allow an actual emt person which was standing right outside the SUV to get in the SUV they didn't allow them they had Brian Harpole doing medical and uh and brian and and i don't know about you but Brian Harpole comes off to me like a complete bullshitting used car salesman making stuff up as he goes and in the fact that he and the fact that he didn't have an uh he's the head of security he didn't have an ambulance there they didn't allow the emt's inside and then he lied about it he lied that they were too scared to come help they're standing right there if you look at the video and then he cuts the t-shirt off he goes in and uh uh starts talking to the doctors about what kind of drugs do you that guy is completely unreliable and completely suspect so i have no problem saying brian Harpole is completely suspect and should be a target of this investigation and well i mean i don't know if we know that he wasn't a target initially but suspect of egregious incompetence is one thing suspect of active involvement in the planning or allowing to happen is something entirely different i have zero doubt after after after he gets murdered under their security watch he'll be in full cover-up mode to make it look like it wasn't their responsibility that it wasn't their negligence and you know the thing about and not having an ambulance not having an ambulance at an event forget Charlie Kirk at an event with 3000 people in the middle of summer itself is negligence but negligence because of human incompetence which if you scrutinized any crime scene ever in the history of whatever you would find these types of elements evidence of human incompetence is far different than that which is required to substantiate some of these conspiracy theories that have been floated around but i again is zero problem saying it's wildly not just uh suspicious inconceivable that they would not cover the roof after what happened at butler and so the reason why they could have so you say that the fact that they didn't cover the roof negates the exploding microphone i would say that that would be them that this is what we're going to use that someone did it here so let's not cover it because that's going to be our our story and even though we're actually going to do it in a different way so that would make sense because they would need a story and the story was oh the roof wasn't covered and that's where the shot was taken and if and and again you go back to Joe Kent the fact that he was stopped by the head of the FBI who does has no interest in investigating this he stopped someone who wanted to who was at the top tippy top of government investigating stuff like this proves that there is to me proves that there is a cover up happening well hold on uh the thing you said right before that before uh oh that they would they would leave the roof open well no but as you said before they would love they would want to have a story no but but the reality is the day of we were all watching virtually live people turn their heads to the roof there was a noise that came from the roof and now if the argument's going to be it was a noise as the decoy to distract from the fact that there was an exploding microphone you're getting into levels of not just complexity but implausibility that defy any reason if all they had to do was have someone on a roof to take the shot when it comes to Joe Kent and this is oh sorry go for Jimmy no but there was another uh there's been reports that there was another shooter that people had seen another person on another building and they also found a bullet on another building and then they also so there's that yeah well and to just first of all there's always and i'm not trying to be glib or or you know facetious there's always another those things that were there was another one at butler where they said there was another guy on the tower the water tower further down there's always people saying there were more than one shooters because people are hearing bullets echo sometimes there is more than one shooter there was a bullet found yeah and it was a different different type of bullet and this is where people say they don't believe the conventional explanation that it it's you know it came it somehow fell off or out of a cop's gun and i forget who it was yeah and i appreciate people is like that's ridiculous that never happens like oh the cop who shot ashley bird forgot his gun in the bathroom at the capital when he went to the bathroom so cops do again they do stupid things but then even if you say like okay that is weird where do you go from there so it was then a different round of a bullet from a different roof even though you don't have that angle different round i think it was a .223 if i'm not if my memory is correct that it was a two two three round which is what police typically use found on the roof of another building not the lozy building unfired if i'm on fire it was just an entire whole bullet and a guy named kyle Seraphin who's an ex-FBI you know he explained that people do cops do a lot of stupid things sometimes you know it literally falls it falls out if you drop here whatever it's if there's a thousand reasons or possibilities so then you just say even if it is weird how does it fit into the theory so let's let's let's put that aside for a moment i want to talk a little bit about the.30-06 hypothesis of the crime here i think we fall into there's a thing i'll try to recreate it called the i think it's the prosecutor's fallacy and basically it looks like this a person their dna matches the dna on a weapon that has been used in a murder and the prosecutor says the chances of this dna matching are a million to one and the person is convicted the problem is if there's no other evidence that the person committed the crime then the fact that you found a person whose dna matches the weapon means nothing because there are people in the population for whom it will match on the other hand if the person is seen running from the crime and then you take their dna and it matches then the chances are one in a million that the chances of the person seen running from the crime would happen to match the dna found on the weapon etc so i want to point to an analogous problem we have a shot that many people have tried to recreate and failed the .30-06 that leaves an entrance wound and no exit wound shot at that angle into Charlie has been very difficult for anybody to recreate which raises a question now the answer to that question is typically given hey bullets do odd things i agree they do but they don't usually do odd things and i think the way to look at this is oh no we've had a tremendously impactful political assassination from a single shot i wonder if the ballistics on this one are going to end up inconclusive and or magic bullet like right that the bullet is going to have done things that yeah maybe occasionally a bullet does but what are the chances in this case that you would have a bullet behaving in an extremely unusual way breaking up in an unusual way not leaving an exit wound etc so i must tell you of the of the pieces of evidence that i think are strongest is that the shot in question is exceedingly unlikely to have created the pattern of evidence that has been recovered from the body so what does that mean that's the question as far as i'm concerned the .30-06 maybe there's some one in 10,000 chance of the bullet having behaved in a you know almost unprecedented way that nobody can manage to recreate no matter how many times they try but if you were going to ask me at the moment of the crime right okay Charlie Kirk has just been shot there was a single shot fired i should have said at that point i predict the ballistics will be anomalous right that is an interesting pattern to me so then there's the question okay so people from.30-06 didn't do this to exploding mic i think that's an error on that part i think the actually i i'm fond of chris Martenson's analysis that says that the trajectory of the shot is wrong yes that's highly likely yes maybe it wasn't a .30-06 that it was fired at a much steeper angle yes like from a drone well and this is the thing we are not talking has evidence of drones flying over that right that and so here's i don't understand why we're not having a broader conversation about this not only do you have drones that do not appear to be like consumer drones flying over the event these appear to be very expensive sophisticated drones but you also a known weapon system that involves armable drones and you know the ability to deploy them from an aerial platform where you have an aerial platform for whatever reason behaving anomalously over the lake adjacent to uv u i'm not saying i i'm no expert in this but it does strike me that the right thing to be doing like were we to have an FBI and were they to be actually interested in solving this crime that they would be interested in the question of okay here's one for you we all agree that there were drones in fact i think in the preliminary hearing the drones were even acknowledged there were drones what did they see maybe they have better images of people on the roofs we could tell whether it was tyler robinson on the roof or not right but instead it's like drones are barely mentioned if at all the specialness of these drones is not discussed the i'm not i'm not sure the drone stuff is um i don't want to make i'm not sure that the drones non non-media or non uh involved drones were were flying in the air so i'm not i'm not sure that that's wait wait wait what aren't you sure of that there were other drones in the sky i'm just checking as we're going other than no no like just the the answer is i mean just just summary Google search uh no reports of drones of any non-media drones security police private flying over Utah Valley uh the day Charlie Kirk was killed okay so i'm not sure about that so so david what would it do to your perspective if you saw compelling evidence that there were drones in the air at the moment of Charlie well i mean what what what type i mean again it'll be what type of drones uh dg fantans how about drones that exceed the capacity of consumer drones well they're they're it would be relevant if it was anything other than if it was anything that could reasonably fire a weapon i mean you have drones that can hold dslr cameras and and they're there for production purposes drones exist and are for sale today if my understanding is correct that can fire uh oh yeah no i see there was the the guy got in trouble because he posted a video of him he tied he managed to hook up a gun to it he was this was managed this is no no this is a military weaponry that will hold um i think it's a 7 6 2 firing uh weapon a rifle um which you know i'm not saying that's what happened but i am saying what is conspicuous to me is that i believe i have seen compelling evidence that there were drones in the air i believe i have compelling evidence that those drones moved in a way that is inconsistent with consumer drones yes and i know that there are drones available that can wield a rifle that could plausibly have committed this crime and that were they to have been used you would get a much steeper angle yes wouldn't that you wouldn't have the anomaly of this incredibly powerful round entering Charlie's and not coming out the other side and there was a military plane that we now know indisputably uh flew that the kind of plane that would have those kind of drones on them dipped down to 200 feet above Provo, Utah and so people are making twice twice and the explanation for it not impossible but the explanation for it if i understand john colin's work correctly is two missed landings so you you understand vivo what the hypothesis is here if if look because i'm just i'm trying to double check just as a matter of fact if there was confirmation of military drones in the sky if it if it were i would it would certainly be something that you'd think about it wouldn't necessarily even on the one hand it would confirm a shot and not uh an exploding mic and then if you who else it would implicate there would be no problem denying as a matter of fact that that would be uh that would be peculiar if it were proven to be true so i i just want to i'd love to get clear i mean i that i i'm not telling you uh when you say conclusive i'm imagining that conclusive is a bar that is by design going to be almost impossible to meet no i'm saying i'll go i have evidence i believe that there is persuasive evidence of drones in the air that they do not appear to be consumer drones um and that you know what do i know about how often uh planes descend to 200 feet twice lake Utah twice i don't know maybe that's a common behavior maybe i don't i don't understand somebody's being trained i don't know what it is but it does at least create a hypothesis of the crime that you would imagine a functional FBI would rule out i it would be better these claim these two particular claims seem to be more unverified than verified or even credible at this point but i think everyone would agree yes if there are drones in the sky at the time at or about the time of the shooting people would have legitimate questions to ask i mean that's then it's just a question of establishing whether or not the fact is true or the allegation is credible okay i'm i'm satisfied with that there was one other thing which i was going to suggest well the one guy who could have probably figured that out was joe kenton he was stopped from investigating that by cat well that's exactly what sorry Jimmy thank you that's what i was going to come back to this is where i i i believe joe kenton it's what the internet is so wild where i say i just want to know if joe kenton actually told canada so once that there were 12 israeli cell phones or you know cell phones from israel detected on the ground i just want to know if it's true because i've never heard joe kenton say it i've never heard anybody say it other than canada's and i don't think there's any confirmation that there were 12 cell phones on the ground even if that would be anomalous to the extent there's probably 20 chinese students with with cell phones on the ground but um when it comes to the shutting down of you know joe kenton allegedly requesting cash Patel to investigate a foreign nexus and say no and then everyone's like there that's your evidence of foreign nexus and i go one step further if there's no foreign nexus but potentially the same type of domestic nexus that we've seen with grudgeon whitmer january 6 possibly with with thomas crooks you don't want to be investigating for a foreign nexus if it's going to reveal a domestic nexus or even the mere fact possibility that there were agents chs's you know assets involved in any of these Discord chats that failed to intervene just like they failed to intervene in that drama hamed context in what was it it was in texas i'd say garland but wherever where you knew that you had FBI agents tracking the terrorists before they you know while they were on route to do their terrorism people jump on the foreign nexus and don't necessarily appreciate if hypothetically you discovered and this is where i say this is where i think there could legitimately be a very real cover-up that there were online Discord groups chats whatever and that there were elements within their domestic radicalizing people and then one of them happens to go and kill Charlie Kirk that's where i can understand that it would be very suspicious if what Joe Kent is saying and i do believe Joe Kent i i've met him i know him i've had him on the channel a couple times i think he's entirely credible whether or not he's too conspiratorial i'd have zero trouble believing that and that's where some transparency from the FBI in terms of what they did and did not do would be more than welcome above and beyond washing their hands and saying well we've given our state partners and we'll offer them whatever assistance i want to know did they investigate identify and clear each and every person who is involved in any online Discord group chat whatever the hell either with Tyler Robinson or Lance Twiggs and we haven't had a confirmation on that so again yeah it's just that people jump to the israel nexus based on that when it could just as easily point to something much less um exotic and much more plausible what would be a legitimate for Kash Patel stopping Joe Kent from investigating a foreign involvement because if he did he would have investigated those drones and he could have said oh these are domestic or these are uh foreign or these came from there or from water and but he stopped that so uh well we said we he rejected reason for him to do that can you think of what he said no i i can't think of a legitimate reason i can only think of an of an alternative explanation which is they're telling Joe Kent bug out we're doing our investigation and we'll cover what what needs to be done here and we don't need to you know we don't want you around here i don't know if he was on the outs at that time with the administration but i can imagine them saying bugger off joe and and and we're doing our own investigation which i suspect is going to be their explanation yeah it's a weak explanation oh it's it's entirely weak yeah why wouldn't you want all the help you could get well not just that and and to provide clarity after the fact like again there's there's forget foreign involvement because until you have the slightest shred of evidence if there was the basic confirmation have have they verified you know investigated and cleared everybody involved in those Discord chats other than the sweeping like oh yeah it's all fine or i don't even think they've said that but again legit i mean i'm not saying i i don't believe that if Tyler Robinson did this that he acted alone because i think there's there's solid evidence of anomalies in terms of unsecured roof assurances that it was secured that that parallel the what i believe was a lee hopper a mehop of of butler and that they didn't learn those lessons what was it barely not even a year later a little over a year later uh that's where you think like maybe they learned the wrong lessons from it so it's that easy yeah i don't think these are lessons not learned i think these are intentional acts it was intentional that they didn't monitor that butler in fact uh people get in the crowd saw the guy up there who didn't see him up there was the secret service was the state police was the local police was the security nobody saw him except people did see him and then the cops said they saw him three times in butler this is going to make them they saw him three times inside a secured area with a backpack and a scope and they asked well what did you do when you saw him the cops said oh he just disappeared each time he disappeared like you you you mean like and they let and and they let trump take the stage oh that is where you know these anomalies are just uh it's impossible that you could have this many anomalies without a cover-up and a conspiracy no it's it's um again like i i and they shut out that investigation too under the idea and the reason is like oh they think it was a that he was told that they thought they wanted to put iran was behind that uh assassination and i'm like well if you thought it was iran and not say let's say israel why would you want to shut down the invest wouldn't you want to prove conclusively that it was iran who was trying to do that uh so that also does it to these things none of these things make sense even in a little bit no i i can't disagree with that because i do think like it's not that the roof was yet again unsecured that um there were posting that something big is going to happen beforehand none of which points to israel and i and it's not for any preference i mean i'm more critical of israel than most people just like you you might want to believe something and then you have to ask yourself even more questions to substantiate what you want to believe if it fits what you do want to believe but the advanced indications of foreknowledge were among these lgbt or whatever communities chat groups and so then the just the question then becomes how did people have advanced notice or are these just the standard signals that you get before any big event and people always joke about you know being clintoned or whatever um but i that's why i sincerely think a lot of these these more outlandish conspiracy theories are or give the administration all the justification they want to not address any of the totally legitimate questions that have yet been answered how the hell do people have advanced knowledge let me say um i've been watching this conspiracy space for decades there obviously have been quite a number of conspiratorial events where conspiracy hypotheses were initially dismissed and then over time it becomes clear that the anomalies are actually telling you something i've come to believe that a there are i believe that the deep exists that it functions with impunity inside of our borders that there are crimes that it can commit and be certain that it will not be held responsible for in any official way and that that requires certain things like the hobbling of the FBI uh or i don't know if hobbling is even the right way to describe it but the idea that a crime will never be properly investigated that certain crimes are uh effectively untouchable and that i i believe that the folks who engage in this behavior have come to understand that they were too focused on committing perfect crimes that couldn't be detected which never works out and that what we are effectively now seeing is crimes are committed and then the battle takes place in the investigation space in the online discussion space that basically we can see that something has happened here all three of us see too many anomalies in this case to think that the simple explanation is a lone gunman angry at Charlie Kirk over lgbtq stuff so so the point is i don't know if retcon is the right descriptor retroactive continuity but the idea that the crime is committed certain things don't add up but that can all be cleaned up in the discussion space we can demonize people who are too focused on important elements we can promote elements that aren't real and you know fall apart on scrutiny and you know my sense that uh Tyler Robinson's going to be convicted right he's going to be convicted even though the basis for reasonable doubt could be easily found if the uh if his defense was dedicated well resourced and willing to go there so can i just also make a quick point that it's it's like if we were just arguing over the roof or we were just arguing over the.30-06 or we were just arguing over no ambulance and what happened in that SUV and the fact that it was scrubbed and sold or if we were just arguing over the paving over the crime scene or if we were just arguing over um the contradictory drone thing or the new drone if we were just arguing but it's no matter where you point your eyes in this case there's a million anomalies no matter what part right so if it was just one part and you got we can't explain this thing or we can't explain that one thing and we can't or there's no thing that no matter where you point your eyes there's uh i've evidence of a cover-up and and the opposite uh evidence of the way the narrative is is put forth by the establishment so no matter where you point your eyes there's a million anomalies and things that don't make sense and actually point towards a conspiracy and that it was not tyler well if that's where you're making one one big big ass leap i mean first of all there there will always be anomalies when you scrutinize any crime scene period so like you'll always find anomalies especially if you operate from the basis that i don't trust anything they say and so i'm going to go and scrutinize oj simpson's prosecution even though i think he's guilty and you'll still find anomalies and they might have actually or at least there is hard evidence they framed uh what might have been a guilty man and allowed him to get off but you know to both of these points the theory of the case is that tyler took the shot i guess the official narratives is he took it alone and i think that's where that's where most people will say you know i don't if he took the shot i don't believe he took it alone i could be open to the idea that it was lance twigs on the roof or somebody else but you know the theory is to get past the he was shot from the roof people hang their hats on a.30-06 doesn't behave that way and i want to come back to this bret you mentioned it earlier that the bullet broke up in an anomalous way the argument is that it didn't the argument now that we know that it was a Core-Lokt Remington which are known for fragmenting badly which is why people don't use them to hunt because you don't want to be picking out uh you know fragments of metal the argument is that it didn't actually fragment in a totally anomalous way and i appreciate rob O'Neill the guy who killed bin Laden it's like he thinks now he might be the authority as to how bullets behave because he's killed you know however many people it's sort of like jeffrey dommer becoming uh an authority on chefs because he's eaten you know several humans it's first of all even when he said that he was still parroting Candace Owens' talking points and literally referencing her so and he's you know refused to elaborate or go anywhere to have a fleshed out meaningful discussion and has actually walked it back and said look it's just i'm just saying based on the video it didn't look like you know bullets operate that way when people who hunt for years and you can go back right this way you know when you said it's anomalous that a .30-06 does it's not you have martin luther king who got shot in the face and it hit his chin bone and then people say okay well it hit his chin bone so that that's a stronger bone then you've got another guy forget who it was it gets shot there's documented cases then cernovich goes and looks back in history at reddit uh reddit boards where they talk about hunting and how the bullet exit the animal and then people have to pivot okay well now it's a deer they have thicker skin and yada yada yada my argument is i don't know how bullets uh typically behave and i know that all bullets don't behave the same way i know that there are a lot of people with tremendous hunting experience who say this happens whether or not it's more often than not it's not anomalous for it to happen in the first place it's not impossible is what it is no but it's not it's not even unlikely is it it's unlikely and i think the point is the bullets typically behave typically this one behaved atypically and the question is putting bounds on how unusual this was is important in determining whether or not the official theory of the crime is likely to be accurate a typically game or within realms 15 of the time whatever when people said a bullet never does this and then you bring up the martin luther king and then they say oh well say one of two things by the way this is how you know you're you're trying to pin an egg to a wall they say oh well that hit him in the jaw bone so that's a different type of bone or they literally say to me you believe the official narrative with with martin luther king as well he wasn't shot with a .30-06 either and so my bottom line is i'm not a ballistics expert at all i've listened to experts on both sides i've listened to chris Martenson i had him on the channel and he made what i think was the biggest concession ever which is i said hype he says hypothetically you know it could have been a fouled round if the rifle hadn't been properly maintained had a foul bore as they said and the bullet was tumbling as you know i think we're talking about a hundred-year-old rifle now we know it's with pretty crappy Remington Core-Lokt but they can't connect that rifle to the bullet well but they don't nor can nor can they it was first of all they it's not even fired well that that's a big leap and they can very rarely just okay i'm sorry i don't want to know no just like they did not match they they could not match the bullet to the rifle that's the case in the majority of gun crimes from what i understand so that's not anomalous at all it so was they didn't definitively not identify again i appreciate the balance of you know the beyond a reasonable doubt more often than not they can't trace the bullet because it doesn't have the the fingerprint of the barrel you know marks and whatever so more often than not they can't but that doesn't mean it didn't come from a rifle it didn't mean it didn't come from that one and in as much as i say like you know you have experts people who have done this their entire lives saying it's not possible and others saying it's it's entirely reasonable and i say like you know i've been a lawyer i was a lawyer for 13 years when you have two experts and one saying it's impossible the other one saying it's entirely possible albeit less likely than than than than not or less likely than the alternative i mean a judge is going to come and say well i don't know which expert to believe anymore but i'm i'm satisfied in thinking it's not impossible if a number of experts say it's possible and you have a history of people on reddit subreddits saying i shot a deer and the bullet didn't come out i don't think i don't think possible is the correct metric right okay possible yes bullets do very anomalous things but they don't usually the effort that has been put recreating this shot is substantial they don't typically do this is that decisive in and of itself of course not but it's not the only anomaly as Jimmy points out this feels like a patemkin explanation yes where if you look where they tell you to look they've got an explanation for each thing here's where he was at this moment here's how he got there here's where he assembled if you look only where they ask you to look it makes sense if you look anywhere else it looks like a set right you're backstage you're looking at scaffolding the building isn't building isn't a building it's you know only a front wall and and at the same moment we lack the investigatory apparatus that you would expect to be looking at all of those anomalies and if all of those anomalies would accompany any complicated environment then they can all be ruled out but we have too many anomalies here for that to make sense right well but but you're confounding anomalies overall versus anomalies for the cause of death i mean we're talking about one thing right now the other anomalies would would explain the cause of death but when we're talking about whether or not it was a bullet to the neck i'm not i'm not convinced that there are that many anomalies other than saying a .30-06 doesn't behave that way hold on bullet to the neck is consistent with the drone based explanation right which and what it changes is the angle and that's right no but but but i agree so so so then we're then the the i'm saying is the anomalous thing is not the bullets of the neck now you're saying well it wasn't a .30-06 it was a .223 from a drone just entertaining your theory not a two three or another bullet but then what then all of this master class of a conspiracy they used the wrong bullet in the rifle to match what would happen to the neck well i have to tell you this is one of the things that troubles me is to the extent that you have a conspiratorial explanation it's weird that certain things that should be easy to have conspired to make sure they agreed don't seem to correct one of the things that bugs me about the whole space is that the official narrative doesn't add up to me in light of the anomalies and the anomalies don't paint a clear picture of you know if he was going to be a patsy you should at least have the correct weapon involved in the crime and you suspiciously don't so i i have the sense that something something always fails to go right and then gets taken care of in the retroactive continuity phase where to the extent that you can dissuade people to look at things that aren't real you dissuade them and to the extent that people insist on looking at things that are real you demonize them something like that so just getting back to what you said earlier the angle doesn't match up from the loci building and uh so there's that that that leads to being from a drone if it was a bullet also i saw a testimony i could be interpreting it incorrectly but i saw the testimony of the bullet she said that there were eight fragments one got lost they can only really use four and she talked about how the fragments didn't match up to a .30-06 bullet that the size of it i saw baron kulman break this down and so that even if you so that so there's that that's that that's against it being a .30-06 but also correct me if i'm wrong they were trying to push the narrative that it was a frangible bullet now we know it wasn't and that uh now they're saying it was a soft tip which to to to uh uh you know an amateur that sounds like oh it's soft so it probably would break up it's the exact opposite a soft tip bullet is actually there to make a bigger explosion inside the neck which would lend it to it would actually blown a drive-through window in the back of his neck and it didn't so the the fact that so correct me if go ahead take it wherever you want well i i look my understanding i had on phoenix ammunition and then people are going to say well he's a biased source and what does he know he just repurposes ammunition the Core-Lokt is supposed to mushroom on impact and it's a yes slow down slow down quickly but mushroom is is the expansion and so and the one thing from what i've been told about these bullets is that they're not good and so instead of mushrooming they do oftentimes break but i i don't think there's any i mean i again if you the idea that the angle is off is is is the conspiracy theory to get away from the fact that the bullet came from the lozy roof and the the sequence of thought that you have to go through to do that is to say yeah people heard the shot come from the lozy roof they i was watching people live streaming they immediately panned right over to the roof uh other people misidentified because there's echo so you say the people who misheard that the shot had to that had to win the decoy so that it came from another spot at a different angle in which case he was still shot um and then you know it could have come from the .30-06 rifle because those bullets never behaved that way like again if there were the bullet breaking up and not being able to be traced to the rifle is different than saying it was not a .30-06 and i think it's the former not the latter Jimmy and if it were the latter you people would be singing screaming at the top of their lungs in in defense because it would be kind of a big deal what it said the the daily mail mischaracterized it said they cannot trace it to the bullet but that's the case in the majority of of these types of incidents yeah i take that as not a significant anomaly the fact that you can't positively match it to the gun doesn't necessarily mean anything to me um and i think that was over overly focused on because as i pointed out earlier those who are exploring conspiracies tend to take anything that leads in their direction and credit it as true and important where some of it just isn't i i just i'm i would like to talk a little bit about how the people um at TPUSA have completely flipped on Charlie Kirk's narrative about everything uh and have pretended that he would support the oran to that to that extent and so and they have uh as he was moving away from supporting israel and zionism and he was uh gladly or not gladly but he was willing and actively doing it letting his don't the zionist donors go away they just flipped and they became a hundred percent zionist organization and are lying about his record and they're caught lying about so many things to the point where Blake Neff that can't even tell you where he was that day when they got off the plane and where he was for hours and hours when Charlie was doing his interview and in salt lake city and then he lied about where he was that night and now we have the the lady who gave the camera the the video of what was supposed to be Tyler Robinson's Dodge Challenger she said the person inside it was a bald-headed guy with three other people so they're just they're just lying constantly and again that goes to that they're complicit in the cover-up well i will say i've been surprised to see what looks like a 175 degree change of course from where i think Charlie was and i i know because i interacted with Charlie over the question of the iran war which he was of course dead set against and he was in the president's year he told me he spent two full days at the white house trying to persuade the president not to attack iran and what i i don't know what to make of what TPUSA is doing nor do i follow them particularly but it does look to me like Charlie was headed one way and TPUSA is now headed almost the inverse direction and you know that could mean anything but um but it does go it speaks to the fact that Charlie's death was an important historical event because Charlie had the ear of young conservatives he was obviously a powerhouse with respect to his ability to persuade he was very decent to people you know his campus events he was very pointed in his critiques of other people but he was very decent to them personally and to see his absence and we just don't have a replacement for Charlie there won't be there won't be a replacement and i i mean i said it back in the day but this was a what sort of preemptive presidential assassination and i appreciate what Jimmy's saying in that people first of all people lie like just okay people lie sometimes for no better reason sometimes you know to protect themselves sometimes to protect others they lie after the fact they lie when they don't have to the fact that people lied about the text messages where Charlie was you know the to come to the conclusion that that's evidence that israel killed him as opposed to that's evidence that TPUSA doesn't want to tarnish his reputation after he's dead and can no longer defend himself i mean that's where you get your motivated reasoning to come to the what i would call the wildly more outlandish and as of yet unsubstantiated theory as opposed to the more likely one which is Yeah, they knew that this would be embarrassing, that Charlie was talking like this in text messages, and they didn't want it to come to light.
• 1:48:11
  And that people say, well, he was against the war in Iran, and now that the war in Iran took off after he was killed, that's evidence that he was killed so that the war could occur.
• 1:48:22
  I mean, again, it's arguing from the conclusion and not towards it, while also ignoring the exact same analogous argument, which is he was very critical of the trans 2SLGBTQIA plus community.
• 1:48:32
  He had had threats of violence repeatedly in the past.
• 1:48:34
  We've lived in the last few years of acts of shootings from trans shooters.
• 1:48:40
  And so it's because we end up going to war with Iran, that's the evidence that he was killed because of his opposition to the war in Iran versus that exact rationale applies with the evidence that we have, or at least prima facie of those who look like they were involved.
• 1:48:55
  So it's again, it's when you want to come to the conclusion, you'll come there.
• 1:48:59
  If it means treating certain set of facts differently than others and preferring those that you do.
• 1:49:03
  But yeah, once he's dead, and once that element of opposition to the war in Iran is out, don't expect them not to exploit that tragedy.
• 1:49:13
  And I say them being an administration, not TPUSA, TPUSA, I think that's just going to go with the political flow.
• 1:49:19
  Well, okay, look, obviously, the war in Iran isn't evidence in any classic sense.
• 1:49:32
  But if you play through, just never mind the particulars of the crime.
• 1:49:38
  Charlie Kirk is dead set against a war in Iran.
• 1:49:43
  I believe that was a very wise position of his.
• 1:49:47
  And in fact, that was the substance of our exchange as we were in agreement that this must be avoided at all costs because it's a disastrous mistake.
• 1:49:57
  After he's killed, the very war that he wished to prevent happens.
• 1:50:04
  And what we don't have is how would Charlie have reacted to the war as it was occurring?
• 1:50:13
  And what would have happened to the vast number of young conservatives who were paying attention to Charlie in light of what he would likely have said about this disastrous mistake?
• 1:50:28
  Obviously we don't know, but I think the point is that is not insubstantial.
• 1:50:33
  You know, at the level of means motive and opportunity, there's a motive.
• 1:50:38
  Now the fact is, lots of people have motives to commit lots of crimes and don't commit them.
• 1:50:42
  So the fact that somebody has a motive is not evidence that a crime was committed, but that's where it sits for me is I know that the war with Iran has long been desired by neocons at the very least.
• 1:51:03
  They got their war in spite of the fact that the American public did not want it.
• 1:51:08
  And Charlie Kirk had a disproportionate influence over a large, important constituency that that constituency is now in the hands of folks who are much more supportive of this policy.
• 1:51:26
  There is a recording of Charlie Kirk from May, I think it's May of 2025, where he was asked about who he feared killing him.
• 1:51:35
  And he said, I don't fear the leftists.
• 1:51:37
  I don't fear some purple haired person on campus.
• 1:51:40
  I don't, we always get these tried on.
• 1:51:41
  He said, who I fear is the people who I have a relationship with.
• 1:51:45
  So he's basically saying he's fearing people that are inside his fear insiders.
• 1:51:50
  That's who he really feared.
• 1:51:51
  He also had, was, wanted an accounting because there's all kinds of financial chicanery.
• 1:51:57
  If you watch wolves of wall street, who has delineated this down to the button, that there was all kinds of financial chicanery happening inside TPUSA, that Charlie, it's like he was just waking up that he was living in a Truman show.
• 1:52:11
  And so he had ordered a doge style accounting, which hasn't happened after since his death and no one cares.
• 1:52:16
  And so those people have a lot of people who are implicated in that have a lot of reason to go along with this cover up and had a lot of, so there's people are just ignoring all that.
• 1:52:27
  So, and it, it, it follows.
• 1:52:30
  I mean, Israel has, and it's not a crazy conspiracy theory.
• 1:52:34
  It's a conspiracy theory.
• 1:52:35
  It's not crazy because they have a history of assassinations.
• 1:52:39
  They brag about it.
• 1:52:40
  And he was the one guy that was standing in the wake.
• 1:52:44
  Tucker Carlson also said that he was the first casualty of the Iran war.
• 1:52:47
  He was standing in the way and they had to get rid of them.
• 1:52:50
  In fact, they tried to bribe them.
• 1:52:52
  They tried to give them$150 million to change course.
• 1:52:55
  He wouldn't change course.
• 1:52:57
  He was, they, a lot of people said he was more important than the RNC, the TPUSA under Charlie Kirk.
• 1:53:03
  So they knew he was a huge problem.
• 1:53:05
  And what did they do with huge problems?
• 1:53:07
  They assassinate them.
• 1:53:08
  And so that, that makes sense that it's not, again, it's, it's a conspiracy theory.
• 1:53:12
  It's not a crazy conspiracy theory.
• 1:53:14
  In fact, it makes sense.
• 1:53:16
  Well, it makes sense except for that, you know, lack of thing called any evidence whatsoever to substantiate it other than your underlying, they had, this could have been their rationale if they wanted to, you just don't have, there is not any evidence to substantiate that they did.
• 1:53:31
  Period.
• 1:53:31
  Well, there's evidence that they stopped the investigation into it.
• 1:53:35
  No, no, that was, that was, that was controlled White House and FBI stopped the investigation into it.
• 1:53:42
  So there's evidence of that.
• 1:53:43
  Well, there's the, the evidence is that Joe Kent says Patel did the evidence is not, I mean, I don't think they've carried out a, I don't know what the extent of the investigation they've, they've carried out is the evidence is not that they didn't.
• 1:53:54
  The evidence is that Joe Kent said that they were not going to know that they stopped him.
• 1:53:59
  No, they stopped him.
• 1:54:00
  He's the head of counter terrorism.
• 1:54:02
  No, no, I appreciate that.
• 1:54:03
  But the evidence is not that they didn't look into it.
• 1:54:05
  The evidence is that Joe Kent was told it had his investigation shut down.
• 1:54:08
  And then the only question is whether or not the FBI did any investigation and whether or not anyone's that they, they, they produced from their investigation.
• 1:54:15
  But again, nobody's, nobody's denying the fact that we have not had sufficient answers in terms of the scope of the investigation into the other people who may or may not have been involved, but everything you said, okay.
• 1:54:28
  So it's that he said he was not nervous about the, the trans community killing that that's factually, I think it's a factually incorrect and also just contradicted by the security at all of these events.
• 1:54:40
  He wasn't having the security to protect from Israelis.
• 1:54:41
  He was having security to prevent from trans activists who resort to violence as in the question that he was answering when he was actually killed Jimmy.
• 1:54:48
  So I agree.
• 1:54:50
  Like you could build the theory.
• 1:54:51
  Well, you just, you just don't have any evidence.
• 1:54:53
  There is no evidence yet to substantiate it other than the absence of evidence.
• 1:54:57
  Well there is the, that guy Harrison who tweeted, he said that Charlie said that Israel will kill him if he turns against them.
• 1:55:04
  He did turn against them.
• 1:55:06
  And then also that he said, I'm afraid they're going to kill me.
• 1:55:09
  Didn't, didn't he also text that well, I'm afraid but I didn't say who there they were, but he would, there is video and audio of him saying he didn't think it was going to be leftists.
• 1:55:21
  Well, I mean, first of all, he obviously thought leftist would have been the problem because a he got the security at all of these events, which were leftist events.
• 1:55:28
  And B he was answering a question on trans gun violence when he was killed.
• 1:55:32
  Now they're going to kill me is also like, you know, how many times the people said I'm going to, I'm going to kill, I won't feel like killing my kids or whatever.
• 1:55:38
  It's not clear.
• 1:55:39
  I appreciate he said it.
• 1:55:40
  And then so he said it, then it's a question of who's the they, was it a metaphorical or a physical kill?
• 1:55:46
  Like they're going to kill me if I, if I abandoned this cause.
• 1:55:48
  I think the clip is pretty clear what he, that he's talking about what he fears, not in terms of blowback, but in terms of for his life.
• 1:55:58
  I think I would have to look at the clip again, but I'm pretty sure it's clear.
• 1:56:02
  Obviously it's not evidence, but I will tell you, you know, if somebody says, I fear for my life and then they're murdered, I'm very interested in who it was they were afraid of.
• 1:56:14
  It's not evidence, but it is a pattern worth paying attention to.
• 1:56:19
  I do think it is important, you know, because this is because the question of Israeli involvement has been raised.
• 1:56:31
  If you say, you know, the Americans attacked Iran, I have the sense of, well, wait a minute, not only did I not support this, but I don't think a majority of my countrymen supported this.
• 1:56:47
  I think a power structure that acts in spite of the, the will of the American did this.
• 1:56:54
  And I think the same thing is true of Israel.
• 1:56:57
  And I think that we have to think of it in those terms.
• 1:57:01
  In other words, I see my country as controlled by a de facto mafia, basically an organized crime syndicate.
• 1:57:15
  I think the same thing is true of Israel.
• 1:57:17
  I think Charlie was concerned about it.
• 1:57:19
  If you go back and you look at what he said on the Patrick Bet-David podcast about October 7th, his concerns that that story was not an accurate rendering of how the attack came to be.
• 1:57:36
  So let's just say I don't want, this is obviously dangerous territory.
• 1:57:44
  I don't want to accuse a nation full of people that clearly had nothing to do with the murder of Charlie Kirk of even being on the list of potential suspects.
• 1:57:55
  But I do have concerns that something controls Israel, something controls the US.
• 1:58:03
  There's a relationship between those two things.
• 1:58:05
  I don't think the thing that controls Israel could have done this in the US without the thing that controls the US signing off on it.
• 1:58:14
  I don't know how that works.
• 1:58:15
  I do take very seriously what Joe Kent said.
• 1:58:21
  And what you're calling the absence of evidence, Viva, there's an absence of evidence partly because there is a clear attempt not to find evidence.
• 1:58:35
  The absence of an FBI that properly investigates crimes is something that we in the American public have to get used to.
• 1:58:42
  It's a fact of the landscape.
• 1:58:44
  There will be an absence of evidence if the body that is charged with finding evidence looks everywhere but where the evidence would be.
• 1:58:52
  So I'm not telling you I know what happened here, but I am telling you we need to be open to many different possibilities because the thing that should close off a wide range of possibilities simply doesn't function.
• 1:59:06
  It declares roofs too steep or whatever.
• 1:59:08
  And we find ourselves there once again.
• 1:59:12
  Can I also just say that Joe Kent also said on my show, I played him the clip that I've been playing since 2016 when Donald Trump was actually critical of the intelligence community.
• 1:59:25
  And he Chuck Schumer, who was then the head of the Democratic Party, was on Rachel Maddow's show.
• 1:59:31
  And for a guy who thinks he's really smart, he's being really dumb to criticize the intelligence community because they've got six ways to Sunday to get back at you.
• 1:59:41
  And so now if Rachel Maddow wasn't a military industrial complex plant, she would have then followed up.
• 1:59:46
  Well, then who do they work for?
• 1:59:48
  Because that implies that they don't work for the president and the president has to look over his shoulder because they control the tail wags the dog.
• 1:59:55
  And so I asked Joe Kent, I played that clip for him and I said, so if they don't work for the president, which obviously they don't, Chuck Schumer, head of the Democratic Party in 2016, knew they didn't work for the president and he should be fearful of them.
• 2:00:08
  I asked him, who do they work for?
• 2:00:10
  And Joe Kent said that it's some kind of a deep state corporate kind of oligarchy thing.
• 2:00:16
  I can't quote him exactly, but he also concurred that the intelligence community, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, doesn't work for the president.
• 2:00:25
  They don't work for the American people.
• 2:00:27
  And we all know the CIA was started by a bunch, a handful of, you know, wall street lawyers, what was concocted by them.
• 2:00:34
  So they're probably working for the same money to oligarch international interests as they, as they always have been.
• 2:00:40
  So we're never, so that's why this is a big problem.
• 2:00:43
  But one more thing before I let it slip.
• 2:00:46
  And I mentioned it before, but the evidence, like the necklace, they cleaned the neck necklace, gave it back to Erica, his bloody microphone.
• 2:00:56
  It went on tour.
• 2:00:57
  So instead of it being logged into evidence until the trial, it went on tour and it was completely bastardized or adulterated.
• 2:01:07
  However you want to put it, these things are not normal in an criminal investigation.
• 2:01:12
  And they gave his phone back to his wife, the media.
• 2:01:15
  None of it makes sense.
• 2:01:17
  It all points towards a coverup.
• 2:01:19
  And then you have the crown jewel, Joe Kent saying he was stopped from investigating it.
• 2:01:25
  Yeah, there's some of the things people frame as anomalous, giving personal belongings back after they've done, done whatever they need to do to them is not abnormal.
• 2:01:35
  And so the only question is whether or not it was abnormal in this particular case.
• 2:01:38
  And I think people are operating on the basis that it was because it happened and not it was because it happened in a way that was anomalous.
• 2:01:44
  I won't speak to it, but they give the personal belongings back to someone after, after a crime when they deem that they've done what they need to do to those items.
• 2:01:52
  Same thing with the car, same thing with the crime scene.
• 2:01:54
  They release it to the university for days is not anomalous.
• 2:01:57
  So I get it.
• 2:01:58
  Do we know, do we know that that standard practice with a phone?
• 2:02:02
  My understanding, I mean, I, I, I understood it as the answer being yes, but contested.
• 2:02:08
  And so people are gonna say, well, you know, more or less depending on the circumstances.
• 2:02:12
  So again, but all again, this also will presumably come out at trial.
• 2:02:17
  And so some of the stuff might be premature in terms of deriving too many conclusions, let alone conclusions that are supported by the absence of evidence.
• 2:02:25
  But in Bret, going back to what you said, like, okay, the evidence is the absence of evidence because they're not letting us look in the right places.
• 2:02:33
  Even when it came to the coverup at what I believe is definitively a coverup of a let it happen on purpose at Butler, you know, people ask questions in terms of who was training Thomas Crooks, not in total absence of evidence, but rather when they, after they found a commencement of evidence that he was at a firing range or a shooting range that routinely had law enforcement and other, I won't say intelligence, but other members of government training there.
• 2:02:59
  I appreciate the argument.
• 2:03:01
  We don't have the evidence because they won't let us get the evidence.
• 2:03:03
  And that's the best evidence to date.
• 2:03:05
  There still has to be the slightest substantiation of some of these accusations if they're to be taken seriously and not to be used as the pretext to say, well, now we don't have to answer any questions because you're asking really, really outlandish ones for which you don't have a slightest shred of evidence.
• 2:03:20
  Well, I agree, but I would just point out this is why I think I'm the lonely voice on this.
• 2:03:28
  This is why a scientific toolkit is the right one.
• 2:03:33
  We are not in a milieu where we can adjudicate this, but we are in a milieu where we can reason about it.
• 2:03:40
  And so considering means motive opportunity, that's standard practice, advancing multiple hypotheses and falsifying them when the evidence is inconsistent, which leaves a smaller number of hypotheses to be tested.
• 2:03:57
  And noting that we are on the back foot because the investigatory apparatus that should have been surfacing evidence and pursuing leads and would be able to answer these questions is manifestly uninterested in doing so.
• 2:04:12
  So the public is in effect doing heroic work, trying to do the forensics on an event where they're hobbled by the fact that they can't subpoena witnesses.
• 2:04:25
  They can't look at evidence, have it independently evaluated.
• 2:04:30
  We have to work from what we can cobble together.
• 2:04:33
  And that is a disadvantaged position that we shouldn't be in, but we don't have a choice.
• 2:04:39
  Can I just go back to the paving over and how it's normal?
• 2:04:43
  So Judicial Watch Tom Fitton did a FOIA and he, the documents proved that an emergency cleanup order was placed on September 11th.
• 2:04:54
  Just one day after the shooting, the crime scene was released back to the university on September 12th.
• 2:05:00
  And by September 16th, the exact courtyard intent area where Charlie Kirk was shot had been cleaned and completely paved over with concrete pavers.
• 2:05:09
  Internal texts even referenced the FBI still being present during the early stages of the cleanup.
• 2:05:15
  And then the contractor on the video, Dan Murrell, said that onsite coordinators told him, this is above our pay grade.
• 2:05:23
  The governor and the FBI said they want this done by Monday.
• 2:05:28
  So when he arrived at the site, it had already been excavated for 10 inches deep.
• 2:05:33
  And Joe, so it was ordered by the governor and the FBI, not by the university.
• 2:05:42
  And so that, again, I just can't dismiss that.
• 2:05:49
  And I just can't take any other alternate explanation that this is obvious coverup.
• 2:05:58
  Well, I can't blame people for thinking that, but the key words are they, you know, they made an emergency request and then did it when the crime scene was released.
• 2:06:06
  And by the way, just double checking that the conventional explanation is not that the FBI wasn't doing an investigation.
• 2:06:12
  And I'm not defending it because I think it's, they should have been more than transparent with this, but that, you know, it was an encroachment viewed as an encroachment on the investigation they were conducting.
• 2:06:23
  So it's not that they weren't their explanation, which you have to at least understand, even if we disagree with it, is that they were doing an investigation and Joe Kemp was butting his nose in.
• 2:06:31
  And so they didn't need him and they didn't need that, but they were doing an investigation.
• 2:06:34
  Still, we haven't had the most basic answers to the most basic questions in terms of the Discord chats and whether or not other people were involved and how people had advanced knowledge.
• 2:06:44
  But that's, that's the conventional explanation.
• 2:06:48
  Okay.
• 2:06:50
  It.
• 2:06:51
  So they did.
• 2:06:54
  Why would the FBI and the governor order digging up the crime scene and paving over it?
• 2:06:59
  Again, I'm not sure that they ordered.
• 2:07:01
  That's not routine university maintenance.
• 2:07:06
  Again, I'm not sure that that's, that's exactly how it happened, even by what you're describing.
• 2:07:11
  But the bottom line is they dug, they cleaned it up and paved it over after it was released to them, which is after they've done their investigation.
• 2:07:17
  And then the argument is going to be, well, they didn't do a thorough enough investigation, but this is the point that we're at.
• 2:07:21
  We don't try it.
• 2:07:22
  We people don't even believe the DNA reports, the autopsy.
• 2:07:28
  Nobody's going to believe anything.
• 2:07:29
  Even if the FBI says, I've, we've done two weeks with it.
• 2:07:31
  Here's everything meticulously cataloged.
• 2:07:33
  No one's going to believe that either.
• 2:07:34
  So we're at, we're at a point where because of the lack of faith in the institutions, no matter what they do, it will be part and parcel of the conspiracy no matter what they do.
• 2:07:43
  Yeah.
• 2:07:44
  I think that's a strong point.
• 2:07:47
  I will tell you, I'm still rattled by the discovery that you put honey in your coffee.
• 2:07:51
  So I'm going to take your point with a grain of salt.
• 2:07:54
  I'm told, I'm told it's, I'm told it's healthier than putting sugar in.
• 2:07:57
  I'm sure it makes me feel better.
• 2:07:58
  I'm going to try it and see whether or not it's evidence of, uh, you're having lost your mind.
• 2:08:04
  But anyway, I will, I will report back on that.
• 2:08:07
  Maybe it's going to be great.
• 2:08:08
  And I will join you, in putting honey in my coffee.
• 2:08:13
  All right.
• 2:08:14
  Anything else that you wish to say before we wrap this up?
• 2:08:19
  No, I'm going to have fun reading the comments, but I wouldn't read them if I were you there.
• 2:08:23
  Live will be brutal.
• 2:08:27
  I've been through 9 11 building seven.
• 2:08:30
  I've been through Seth Rich.
• 2:08:36
  I've been through the Syrian gas attacks.
• 2:08:38
  I've been through the Ukraine war.
• 2:08:41
  I've been through COVID.
• 2:08:42
  I've been through Joe Biden's not demented.
• 2:08:44
  I was called crazy and a crazy conspiracy about for all of that immediately attacked.
• 2:08:49
  You are immediately attacked.
• 2:08:51
  Uh, and the same thing is happening here.
• 2:08:53
  And, uh, people calling me QAnon and calling me crazy and worse and worse than that, uh, not just randos by the way, right?
• 2:09:02
  Like prominent people.
• 2:09:04
  Uh, and it's an obvious coordinated attack, uh, or coordinated defense of TP USA and the FBI narrative with the certain influencers happening, going out and lying, blatantly lying.
• 2:09:16
  And why were they even invited into the courtroom and the whole deal?
• 2:09:19
  So, um, yeah, that's, it's just, there's just no way to spin this, that this is in the cover up and that we're not ever, we may never find out who did it because the people who have the ability to look into it are not looking into it.
• 2:09:33
  And I'll just add, I'll only add one thing, Jimmy, I lived through a lot of those, but not all of them, just cause you're older than me.
• 2:09:39
  And this is like what I call the litigation trauma.
• 2:09:41
  When you get involved in litigation for too long, eventually everybody's in on it.
• 2:09:45
  Everybody's against you.
• 2:09:46
  Even your own lawyer, your wife, your judge.
• 2:09:49
  That's not what this is.
• 2:09:50
  This is called pattern recognition.
• 2:09:54
  Well, but I'm recognizing another pattern here, even during COVID, when people were coming out saying the virus doesn't exist, that was the type of conspiracy that actually undermined the legit conspiracy, which is that it originated from gain of function in a lab in Wuhan, China.
• 2:10:08
  People saying it's, you know, the snake, then there were people even during COVID who were getting conspiracy psychosis and manufacturing destructive and distracting conspiracies that ultimately just discredited those who were actually trying to get at the actual truth and who had legitimacy to their theory.
• 2:10:23
  So I say all of this, you learn from history, but when you become hypo, what's the word I'm looking for?
• 2:10:29
  You know, you can become hypersensitive to certain allergens and not tolerance to them or not able to deal with them properly.
• 2:10:35
  And I think some people have gotten a little bit too far down that side of the conspiracy psychosis this time around.
• 2:10:40
  All right.
• 2:10:41
  That's an excellent place to leave it.
• 2:10:44
  I appreciate the care with which you both did this and your good faith I think is evident.
• 2:10:52
  And I think the lesson here is that we need to apply a very careful, rigorous toolkit to consideration of conspiracies.
• 2:11:01
  That's the only way to do so in a contested environment like this.
• 2:11:06
  So Viva Frei, Jimmy Dore, thank you so much for joining me.
• 2:11:11
  Okay.
• 2:11:12
  My pleasure.
• 2:11:13
  I appreciate it.
• 2:11:13
  Good to see you all and great work, Bret.
• 2:11:16
  All right.
• 2:11:16
  Great.
• 2:11:17
  Thank you.
• 2:11:17
  Be well, everyone.